Orton's Arm

Remember, remember 20 days after December, The way that the Bills' chances were shot, I see no reason Why the waste of ten seasons Should ever be forgot. John Guy, John Guy, t'was his intent To continue on, despite funds misspent. Dockery, Walker, Royal, and others fell below Reasonable expectations, leading to Jauron's overthrow; By Buddy's diligence Guy was catch'd In the night. Guy's poor performance was unmatched. Holla boys, Holla boys, let the bells ring. Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King! And what should we do with Guy? Burn his effigy!

When John was first given his position, the Bills evidently hoped he'd turn into a very special Director of Pro Personnel. Instead, he turned out to be just some Guy. Good riddance!!

Okay. But . . . is he big enough to play OLB in a 3-4? Bryce Paup played at 250. Cornelius Bennett played at 240, but that was in a different era when players were a little smaller. I suspect that Maybin probably needs to add 20 pounds at least to be a 3-4 OLB.

I think you're reading too much into Gailey's comments. He's only been here a short while, and is probably focused more on putting his staff together than evaluating the Bills' QB position. That will come later. The fact that Edwards and Fitzpatrick--but not Brohm--jumped to mind when Gailey was asked about the QB position is probably because Brohm only had one start. If in a couple of months Gailey still isn't mentioning Brohm when describing the Bills' quarterback situation, then it might mean something. But for right now, it's probably unwise to read too much into the comments of a guy in his first week at his new job, who's still getting his feet under him.

I agree with this. The only reasons I'd see to not do what you've suggested would be these: 1. If Clausen isn't there at #9 (obviously) 2. If the Bills are sold on Brohm 3. If the Bills are not sold on Clausen I agree with the general principle that, if you don't have a QB, and if there's a franchise QB there waiting to be taken, you take him. Period. Any other need is going to be less hard to fill than that! If the Bills go with a QB at #9, I also agree with the idea of trading back into the first to grab a LT. The Bills need to take a LT either in the first round or early in the second. The one problem with this draft is that it doesn't address the NT position--which would be critical if we're switching to a 3-4. But we can always either a) eschew the above-described trade, take a LT in the second and an NT in the third, or b) take a NT on the second day of the draft. Plus maybe sign a player or two in free agency. The second day pick at NT could become a long-term backup/depth player, and in the short-term would see a lot of playing time.

I disagree WRT Johnson--I think he might make a respectable LDE in a 3-4--but otherwise I think your list is more or less right. The guys you mentioned are all either a) older, generally declining players who will soon need to be replaced anyway (Kelsay, Stroud), or b) backups (McCargo, Whitner, Ellison, Corto, etc.). If the Bills were to release every guy on that list tomorrow, would it really affect the team a few years down the line? I'd answer that question in the negative, because a few years from now, none of those guys will be with the team anyway. The main problem with switching to the 3-4 is that we'd need to replace some second-rate or aging players on defense a little sooner than we otherwise would have, at a time when the offense has a lot of holes. To make up for this, the Bills could use one or two relatively early picks on defensive players they see as long-term solutions, and perhaps a few second day picks on defenders they see as short-term stopgaps/long-term backups. They could also sign some defensive players via free agency. These measures would largely assuage the short-term pain to the defense, without taking too many early picks away from the offense. Given the state of the defensive front seven, we're going to have to invest a good number of early picks in it over the next 2 - 3 years no matter what defensive scheme we employ. So we may as well start drafting 3-4 style defensive players, at least if we're convinced that the 3-4 is the better long-term option.

The thing I like about the 3-4 is that it's intrinsically more unpredictable than the 4-3. In the latter defense, the offense pretty much knows that the four down linemen are going to be rushing. So the straightest path to being unpredictable is to send a fifth guy--a blitzer. With a 3-4, the offense also knows that your down linemen will be rushing. But the defense can send a fourth guy--usually a LB--to rush as well. Because the offense doesn't necessarily know which LB will be rushing on any one play, this defense can create unpredictability while only sending in four rushers. (And without having to send some defensive lineman back into pass coverage!) If you want a good-to-very good 3-4, you need dominant players at four positions: NT, RDE, rushing OLB, and your #1 CB. Maybin might become the good rushing OLB we need. The Bills' secondary is the absolute last area this team should be worrying about right now. So that would leave NT and RDE as the main holes to be filled if we switched to the 3-4. The Bills could fill the NT void by taking Cody late in the first. That would leave RDE as the main hole/need for a dominant player. For the 2010 season, the Bills would probably put a stopgap player of some sort there. But sooner or later, they'd need to use a first round pick to fill that hole. But they'd have to do that anyway, because Schobel isn't getting any younger, and a good pass rush from your front four is key to making the Tampa 2 work.

I'm guessing that Clausen and Bradford will be off the board by the time the Bills' pick comes around at #9. If that's the case, picking a QB at #9 would be a mistake, because it's not obvious that any remaining QB at that point would be significantly more likely to succeed than Brohm. So the Bills could take a LT at #9. Then they could trade their 2nd and 3rd round picks to get back into the lower first round. That pick could be used on Cody--the kind of NT we'd need for a 3-4. With their second day picks, the Bills could take an offensive lineman and defensive front seven players. I admit that if the Bills ignored the defense on the first day of the draft, they could use their second round pick on a RT. That would allow Butler to be moved back to guard, Wood to center, and Hangartnar to the bench (where he belongs). But the defensive front seven is going to need an infusion of talent, regardless of whatever scheme we employ. Schobel is contemplating retirement, Stroud isn't the same player he used to be, Kelsay and Denney are getting on in years, and there are holes in the LB corps. Besides that, the Bills could help their offensive line by signing/re-signing Incognito, making him the starting RG, and moving Wood to center. The Bills don't need to use a second round pick to put Hangartnar on the bench!

I can't speak for the OP, but while listening to the radio yesterday I heard Vic Carucci say that the Bills were switching to a 3-4. He said there are those high up in the organization--either Nix or Wilson--who have decided a 3-4 is the way to go. Which goes a long way to explaining Gailey's "openness" to the idea.

True. And in the same place, you also read that And . . . I have the feeling that between Gailey's coaching and Nix's drafting, we're likely to see substantial improvement with the Bills' offense!

Regarding the Marty love around here: I think it's mostly because fans are thinking, at least he usually got to the playoffs, which is more than you can say about Jauron. Even if he choked horribly once he got to the playoffs, he's still a step up from Jauron. With his long track record, he's as close to a sure thing as the Bills are going to get. The thing is that Ralph wasn't looking for a coach to be a step up from Jauron. He wanted a coach that would give this team its best possible chance to win a Super Bowl. A playoff choke artist like Schottenheimer was not that guy. Whether Gailey can be that guy remains to be seen, and largely depends on who he picks as defensive coordinator.

Me too! In honor of which, we should play . Okay, maybe it's not a perfect theme song for an NFL guy/tough-as-leather type. But at least it has the word Buddy in it a lot! You have to admit that!!

My earlier point was about Brees' poor play in 2002 and 2003--when Schottenheimer was his head coach. Brees' rookie year was in 2001. By the time he started playing well (in 2004), he was going into his fourth year! A coaching staff should be able to bring a quarterback along faster than that, especially when the quarterback in question is a Drew Brees. I'll grant that Brees started playing well eventually with Schottenheimer as his coach. To respond to your point about Brees looking better than the guys Gailey coached: a chef is only as good as his ingredients. If you give Chan Gailey guys like Kordell Stewart, Jay Fiedler, Tyler Thigpen, etc., how much is there the man can realistically do? I'd argue that, given the quality of the ingredients he'd been handed, Gailey did everything one could expect and more. Kordell Stewart had his one good year under Gailey's tutelage. Thigpen's success--such as it was--came under Gailey. Fiedler had his best year--2001--while Gailey was his offensive coordinator. Gailey made bad quarterbacks look better than they really were.

My earlier point was this: after Brees' third year in the league, the Chargers were ready to go in a different direction. That's how badly Brees was playing. How much of the blame for that should fall on Schottenheimer and the coaching staff he'd created? Considering that Schottenheimer was Brees' head coach for the second and third year of that, probably a fair amount. You correctly pointed out that Brees played well in years 4 and 5 of his career--also with Schottenheimer as his head coach. Fair enough. But getting Brees to play well is like teaching a fish to swim: it shouldn't be all that hard to do! In contrast, Chan Gailey got guys like Kordell Stewart, Jay Fielder, and Mike Tomczak to play well--which is sort of like teaching a brontosaurus how to swim!

I wouldn't go quite so far as you have in that bolded statement. Hansen played for eleven seasons, and in that time obtained 61.5 sacks. Allowing for time missed due to injury and so forth, that's about six sacks a season. All of which probably came against single teams, especially considering the guy we had at RDE. I'm not promising that Kyle Williams could get six sacks a season as a LDE, but he's gotten some good penetration at times. Play him for 16 games as a starter at LDE, and he probably comes away with a few sacks over the course of the season. He made four sacks this past season as a DT. While comparisons about their pass rushing ability are difficult to make (due to them playing different positions), run-stopping comparisons are even more speculative. But for the sake of moving the discussion forward, I'll throw this datum out there. Stats about the number of tackles made were not kept until Hansen's last year as a Bill. That year he made 22 tackles over the course of 12 games. Kyle Williams had 41 tackles this past season over the course of 14 games. I'll grant that Hansen's tackle numbers were probably a lot better in previous seasons (for which stats were not kept). When I hear a name like Phil Hansen, I think of a big, strong guy who was a run-stopper first, but also a solid pass rusher. As a LDE, Kyle Williams would be a similar style of player to that, even if he never reached Hansen's level of play.

As long as we're discussing each other's posting records, let's have a look at yours. You've done the following: First, attempted to deny that there's such a thing as the regression effect. Even laughed when I showed you an article about it. Later, admitted such a thing existed, after I found other, similar articles from places like Stanford and Tufts. Then, you claimed that the regression effect only applied to auto-correlations. For those who aren't very familiar with statistics, the logical contortions Tom must have needed to go through to reach that stupid a conclusion are almost beyond description. Accused me of using poor statistical terminology--I'd described something as a "quasi-normal distribution" because it was similar to a normal distribution--while, in the same sentence, using the phrase "binomial distribution" to describe a multinomial distribution! For your own personal edification, the word "bi" means two. So when you have a distribution with more than two possible outcomes, it is not a binomial distribution! Coin flips = binomial distribution. Die rolls = multinomial distribution. What makes all this worse is that statistics is supposed to be your "thing." I mean, your alleged expertise in that field is deeply involved with your weekly paycheck. Apparently the government isn't as good about getting rid of dead weight as one might have hoped. No sane employer would even consider hiring you for anything even remotely statistics-related. The combination of your ignorance, your inability to apply basic logic to statistical principles, and your know-it-all, condescending personality make you an extremely poor fit for any serious, statistics-related position.

Why would we want someone like Schottenheimer? What has he done to suggest he'd bring high quality coaching to the Bills' offense? His KC offenses were dull and unproductive. He was the Chargers' head coach in the years leading up to, and during, the decision that Drew Brees was not the answer at quarterback. The Chargers' front office gave Schottenheimer lemonade, and he found a way to turn it into lemons.

I'm not enamored with Schottenheimer's coaching. In Kansas City, his offenses were known as being dull, predictable, and second-rate. Then there was his experience with the Chargers . . . In 2001, the Chargers drafted Drew Brees. In 2002, Schottenheimer became the Chargers' head coach. Going into the 2004 draft, the Chargers felt they'd seen enough of Drew Brees to determine he was not the answer at quarterback. How do you coach badly enough to conclude that Drew Brees is not the answer?!?! Schottenheimer was another Wade Phillips: a guy who made sure his defenses were well-coached, but who was never able to bring that good coaching to his teams' offenses. Both coaches have winning records, and neither coach has done anything special in the playoffs. A good defense plus a mistake-free but unimaginative offense can carry your team only so far.

With Schobel contemplating retirement, we don't necessarily have the talent for a 4-3 either. In fact, I can't think of any good players on the DL who are still relatively young. Kyle Williams being a sort-of exception, but he could always play LDE in a 3-4. He'd be a little like Phil Hansen. Maybin might be better suited to being an OLB in a 3-4 than he seems to be as a DE in a 4-3. I think that Poz and other good, youngish LBs should be able to find a place to fit as well. (Scott being a possible exception. But he could always go back to SS.) Obviously, the first order of business in transitioning to a 3-4 would be to find a NT. I think there's a good one that should be available later in the first round. The Bills could always trade back into the first to take that guy! We need young DL talent anyway (see above), so there's no shame in taking a guy like that!

I'd like you to elaborate on the bolded statement. Let's compare Schottenheimer and Gailey across the dimensions most important for head coaches: 1. Quality of offensive scheme/coaching. I remember that Schottenheimer's teams were considered unimaginative and predictable on offense while he was in KC. Gailey is a very solid and creative offensive coordinator. Gailey wins this one, unless there's some favorable aspect to Schottenheimer's offenses I'm missing. 2. Quality of defensive scheme/coaching. I'm guessing that the advantage here goes to Schottenheimer, but could be wrong. 3. Quality of special teams schemes/coaching. Unknown. 4. Ability to motivate players, create a disciplined environment, etc. Schottenheimer seems like he's strong in that area. I've heard good things about Gailey in that respect, from a Dallas fan. (That fan pointed out Gailey got Nate Newton to lose 100 pounds, and did a lot of other good things.) This could be a wash, but more information is needed. 5. Quality of game day decisions. I think that both coaches are decent, but not great, in that area. Looking at the above list, I don't see what specific aspects of the head coaching responsibilities Schottenheimer would execute "infinitely better" than Gailey will. If Gailey can get his hands on a good defensive coordinator to implement the switch to a 3-4, this could be a well-coached team! Edit: In 2001, the Chargers drafted Drew Brees. Schottenheimer became the coach in 2002. By 2004, the Chargers had seen enough of Drew Brees to have become convinced he was not the answer. They ended up using the fourth overall pick on Philip Rivers (via trade). While Drew Brees was languishing under a Schottenheimer-coached team, Gailey was off making guys like Kordell Stewart, Tyler Thigpen, and Jay Fielder look good. Tyler Thigpen averaged 6.2 yards per pass attempt under Gailey's coaching in 2007, as compared to 5.9 yards per pass attempt for Drew Brees in 2003 on a Schottenheimer-coached team. Which coach do you think is more likely to fix the Bills' offense: the one who convinced his GM that Drew Brees was not the answer, or the one who whose coaching convinced at least some people that Tyler Thigpen was?

I was driving around the Buffalo area a lot today, which gave me the chance to listen to the Shred and Reagan show. While the ADD factor of that show was annoying (random jumps to different topics, songs thrown in for no good reason, etc.), I figured it was worth putting up with that junk to get more information about the Bills' new head coach. What I learned: People from Kansas City spoke favorably about the Gailey hire. Apparently the reason he was fired from his OC position was because KC's current head coach wanted to install an Arizona-style offense in KC, even though he didn't have a Kurt Warner or a Larry Fitzgerald. Gailey wanted to adapt the offense to the talent he actually had. Jerry Jones apparently called his decision to fire Gailey as the Cowboys' head coach one of the worst business decisions he'd ever made. As an OC, Gailey has shown a knack for turning lemons into lemonade. He's had success with Kordell Stewart, Thigpen, Fielder--guys who became nonentities after their time with Gailey. Had Bill Cowher been hired, he would have selected Chan Gailey as his offensive coordinator. Vic Carucci was interviewed. He felt certain the Bills would switch to a 3-4 defense under Gailey. He said that someone high up in the Bills' organization--it was either Nix or Wilson--had concluded that a 3-4 defense was a better way to go than a 4-3. Carucci seemed to agree with that proposition, and cited several examples of 3-4 defenses that were superior/better than their 4-3 counterparts. I'm not 100% convinced this hire will work out, but at least there's significant potential for it to.

I'm not entirely comfortable with Bradshaw's inclusion on this list. As you point out, his career passer rating is 70.9. Kelly Holcomb's is 79.2. I know passer rating is a flawed stat (it takes into account completion percentage, even though it shouldn't). And I know we're looking at different eras, and it was harder for people to complete passes in the '70s than it was in the 2000s. And I know Bradshaw put up much better stats in the postseason than the regular season. But still. At least Bradshaw came in ahead of Holcomb in average yards per pass attempt (7.2 to 6.6). Both players had about a 1:1 TD/INT ratio. Bradshaw played behind some very good offensive lines, had amazing running games to take the pressure off the passing game, and was throwing to guys like Lynn Swan. Kelly Holcomb's supporting casts, in both Cleveland and Buffalo, generally consisted of chopped liver. Kelly Holcomb is a significantly better quarterback than most people give him credit for. But he clearly does not belong anywhere near a list of 16 greatest QBs. Neither, I suspect, does Terry Bradshaw.

The Bills teams that Kelly was on had a lot more talent than the Marino or Elway teams. Marino never had a running game. Kelly had Thurman Thomas. Plus the Bills were loaded with receiving threats. Plus they had a really good offensive line. Plus they had guys like Bruce Smith and Cornelius Bennett on defense.

I didn't like the inclusion of Shanahan in that video. He treated the Bills' HC opening with respect: had hours of talks with the Bills, in fact. Ultimately he opted for the Redskins position instead, because he and Allen were a package deal. There's no shame in any of that, and no disrespect for the Bills. Now if it's some random offensive or defensive coordinator we're talking about, who's never held a head coaching gig, then yeah. When a guy like that refuses to even interview with the Bills, it gets a little annoying. To say the least.

Thanks!