Orton's Arm

I voted for the 3-4!! With a 3-4, you have the three down linemen who rush the passer pretty much every pass play. But then you normally send in a fourth guy--one of your linebackers. But the linebacker you're sending in will vary from play to play. That unpredictability will cause confusion within the offense about who's supposed to block whom. With a 4-3, your standard package involves rushing four down linemen. If you want to create unpredictability, you need to rush a fifth guy, or you need to drop one of your down linemen into coverage to take the place of a blitzer. Either option leaves you more vulnerable to big pass plays than a four man rush/3-4 would be. The inherent unpredictability advantage of a 3-4 is why you can have a good, solid defense without necessarily having top-tier athletes at every position. As long as you have very good players at the four key positions--NT, RDE, rushing OLB, and primary CB--you can get by with lesser players at the other seven positions. In contrast, the system we have in place now can work, but you need dominant athletes at a lot of positions. Your front four have to dominate the other team's OL, as Tampa's DL did back in its Super Bowl win. You apparently need a dominant secondary, which would explain why the front office threw so many high draft picks at it while Jauron was the head coach. I also remember Tampa having one or more dominant LBs back when it won that Super Bowl.

I wouldn't necessarily read too much into Losman's recent tryout. We don't necessarily know if the driving force behind Losman coming to Indy was Bill Polian, his son Chris Polian, or someone else in Indy's front office. Maybe someone lower on the totem pole wanted to at least take a closer look at Losman, and Polian (either Bill or Chris) decided to let him go ahead with it, more out of wanting to not cut the legs out from a subordinate than because either had any real faith that Losman was a serious candidate. But another possibility is, as Dog points out, that Losman was made an offer, but chose to refuse. Maybe he thought that Manning would retire soon, but was told that he'd continue playing for many more years. Who knows? I imagine that over the last few months, a lot of guys have gone to the Colts for tryouts, and that very few have come away with roster spots. Is this really a category of players at which we should be looking more closely? If for example we fill our quarterback position with Losman, then why not build our offensive line by signing linemen Polian tried out but decided he didn't want? We could also find a possession receiver to complement Evans (after T.O. is gone) by signing someone who came away from Indy without a contract. Same thing for defensive linemen and linebackers. Our defensive secondary has to be all first round picks though. Okay, so maybe there was just a touch of sarcasm in the previous paragraph. A very light touch, because I'm quite subtle about such things! The point I was getting at is that being given a tryout by Indy, and coming away without a contract, should not necessarily be viewed as a credibility-enhancing event.

Every year, the average team in the NFL will go 8-8. Some teams will win more than eight games, which forces other teams into the position of soaking up a lot of losses. There's literally nothing the NFL can possibly do to increase the average winning percentage of teams. Your point, however, was about teams that are chronic losers of games. I gather that if a team went 4-12 for a couple times, you'd be okay with it, but if they had records along those lines for a more protracted length of time, you'd want them punished in some way. To a degree, the NFL does this already in the form of a salary floor: a minimum amount each team is required to spend on its players. If your plan is to save money by cutting corners on players, at least there's a limit to how much money you can save! But maybe the NFL could go further in that direction by raising the salary floor (while lowering the salary cap); thus further reducing the financial incentive to go the cheap players/lousy team route. But if an owner is willing to open his pocketbook, and gets stuck with a lousy team anyway, what can you really do to punish the guy? In a case like that, the lousy team is likely the result of the owner's incompetence (at selecting a GM, for example). I don't really see how the threat of punishment could cause owners to develop a better knack for selecting good GMs.

I'd like to comment a little on the portion of your post which I've bolded. A lot of people, as you pointed out, frame this argument as a good GM versus good draft position, with the former postulated as being more important than the latter. I look at the situation differently: a skilled front office and good draft position go hand-in-hand. To illustrate this point, imagine the following player lists. Bill Polian creates a ranked list of what he believes to be the top 100 or 300 players in an upcoming draft. Matt Millen does the same thing. Then, ten years later, the players in that draft are evaluated based on what they'd actually achieved. Clearly, Polian's list will have more in common with the 20/20 hindsight list than will Matt Millen's list. Before a draft gets underway, the closest thing you'll have to a "true" view of how players will turn out is the view of a good GM like Polian. Let's say Polian's first pick in the draft is 30th overall. The first ten guys to be picked have the following Polian ratings: 1. 100 (on a scale of 1 - 100) 2. 10 (anything below 20 indicates a flat-out bust) 3. 85 4. 70 5. 4 6. 90 7. 65 8. 50 9. 7 10. 70 By the time the 30th overall pick rolls around, the players with the highest Polian ratings have been taken off the board. That forces Polian to take a guy with a significantly lower Polian rating than would have been the case had he picked earlier in the draft. Polian brings an immense amount of insight with him into the draft room, but the value of that insight is maximized when you give him the best possible tools (i.e., earliest possible draft picks) with which to work.

Translation: Maybin has had successes against the Bills' chump offensive line, in practice, but hasn't been able to get it done against the real offensive linemen he's faced in games. That's not necessarily a knock against Maybin, as it often takes rookie DLs a while to adjust to the NFL game. At least he's already succeeding against the our current sorry group of tackles, which is, at least, a beginning.

"Opening up the playbook" is, at least in a Losman context, often used as a euphemism for throwing long bombs to Lee Evans. I'll grant that Losman liked throwing long bombs to Evans, was good at it, and was most successful when that formed the bread and butter of the offense's point production. But it should not be assumed that an offense with a lot of long bombs is necessarily complex. My understanding--based on the article I'd read--was that in 2006, Losman was supposed to throw it to his primary target if open, or to dump it off to his release valve if the primary target was covered. A simple offense, consistent with Losman's mental limitations.

That's one of the most convincing, analytic, and best posts I can recall having seen on these boards! You've convinced me that the Bills should not use a top 5 draft pick on an overhyped offensive tackle with a last name of Williams! (Or a first name of Trent, for that matter.) Please let us know how whichever players we do pick stack up with respect to the metrics you and the associated website have identified.

We need to ask ourselves two questions: 1) Who are the younger, good players who deserve to be included in our future front seven? and 2) Is there room for them in a 3-4? A 4-3? Most of the guys in our front seven are either on the wrong side of 30, mediocre, or both. A guy like Kyle Williams seems like a good fit in our current system, but I think he could either be a LDE or a backup NT in a 3-4. Poz would be a perfectly good ILB in a 3-4. Maybin doesn't necessarily have a role in our current defense, but could be a good OLB/pass rushing LB in a 3-4. I don't really see any young, good, front seven guys who'd get left out in the cold if we switched to a 3-4. Which means that this transition won't create any holes that wouldn't have existed anyway. Plus we'd have a better chance of getting use out of Maybin, which means one less hole. The thing I like about a 3-4 is that it gives you more chances to create unpredictability than a 4-3. With the 3-4, you know that the three down linemen are going to be rushing the passer. It's generally the case that at least one LB will also rush, but the offense won't necessarily know which LB it will be. Unlike a 4-3, a 3-4 gives you the benefits/unpredictability of a blitz without forcing you to rush more than four guys. (Or having to drop a lineman into coverage.) That unpredictability is a big part of the reason why you can have a very good 3-4 defense without necessarily having top level players at every position. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. The Bills benefited from that in the '90s, and the Patriots have benefited from it during their Super Bowl years. In both cases, the teams had very good defenses despite having mediocre athletes at a lot of their positions.

First, I agree with what you wrote about Flutie. Good play in '98, lousy in '99. The defense carried that team. Secondly, I agree that officiating has played a significant role in some of the Bills' losses to the Patriots. I remember a game in which Holcomb was leading the Bills down the field, late in the fourth quarter, at a time when a touchdown would have given the Bills the lead. Holcomb had just completed a third down pass to Moulds for what should have been a first down. But that play was called back on a ticky-tack offensive pass interference penalty, which turned first and ten into fourth and eleven. I know that Holcomb takes some flak for having thrown it short to Moulds on that fourth and eleven play--even though his primary target, Roscoe Parrish, was double covered. But it would be nice to see Bills fans give Holcomb credit for having played well enough that the Patriots needed a little help from the officials to win that game. But mostly, I'd like to address your comment about Losman's 2006 season. I read an article which indicated that the offense had been considerably simplified for Losman's benefit in 2006. Also, that offense was highly predicated on long bombs to Lee Evans. After 2006, defenses apparently figured out that that the Bills' simple offense was simple to stop. Double cover Evans, put eight men in the box, and dare Losman to beat you with his underneath game. Losman hasn't looked like an NFL-caliber quarterback--even as a backup--since defenses started doing that.

I agree that LB is a need. However, we can't fix all our holes in a single off-season, so the upcoming draft should be considered year 1 of the rebuilding project. I think that the team should place a greater sense of urgency on building the offensive line than on its LB corps, for two reasons: 1) Offensive linemen typically take longer to develop than linebackers. By bringing them in early in the rebuilding process, you give them extra time to get up to speed. 2) I think that teams have a responsibility to their QBs to make a good faith effort to keep them from getting killed. Our most recent quarterback of the future has suffered multiple concussions in large part because his team failed in this responsibility. Year 2 of the rebuilding project would mostly be devoted to the defense. If you're playing a 3-4--as the Bills hopefully will be--then you need four good to very good players on your defense to make it work. NT: You need a Ted Washington or a Pat Williams: a guy who can hold his own and make plays while using up two blockers. RDE: You don't have to have Bruce Smith here, but you at least need Marcellus Wiley. This guy will generate a lot of pass pressure, and will get you some sacks. OLB: Ideally, you'll have a Bryce Paup in this position, but you can afford to have a guy that's a step or two down from him. This LB should be an expert pass rusher, but should also have the versatility to be good against the run and in pass coverage. CB: You should have an Antoine Winfield here--a guy who can be on an island against the other team's best WR, and keep the situation under control. If you're forced to double cover their best receiver, then that leaves you with one less defender/less flexibility. The other seven guys on defense should be solid players, but don't have to be at the same level as the four above-mentioned guys. So where does our defense stand in relation to getting those four first-rate players? We already have McGee, and that should be close enough to a top-level CB. Aaron Maybin has the potential to be a very good pass rushing OLB in a 3-4. So that leaves NT and RDE as the two positions in which we need elite-level players. Perhaps one or both of those positions could be addressed early in the 2011 draft. Then with their third or fourth round pick, the Bills can take ILBs or other players whom they hope will be solid starters--Brandon Spoon or Kyle Williams-level players, not necessarily Bryce Paup or Bruce Smith-level guys.

This is actually a fairly convincing post. If there's a top-tier QB like Clausen available, the Bills should probably take him. But in the more likely event that Clausen is off the boards by the time the Bills pick, I'd have no problem with taking a LT in the first round and another offensive lineman in the second. I know I probably sound a little like Bill from NYC here (not necessarily a bad thing at all!) but this team could justify taking offensive linemen with its first four draft picks: 1. LT. Currently a gaping hole. 2. RT. Butler gets hurt too much, and we could use an upgrade at his position. 3. G or C. Hangartnar is the lowest ranked starting center in the league, and should be a backup. Either draft a center or draft a guard and move Wood to center. 4. T. The Bills don't have quality depth at the OT position. Doing that should fix the offensive line; and Brohm sounds like he at least has the potential to fix the quarterback position. We could give him a year or two to prove himself before addressing QB in the first round. Especially if there aren't any can't-miss QB prospects available when the Bills draft.

In a nutshell, Tim Couch played well for Leach, and badly in the pros. I don't understand why that would be seen as a negative for the college coach involved: coaches are supposed to get the very most out of the players they've been handed. But if the Tim Couch example is typical of how Leach-coached QBs fare in the pros--perhaps because he's using a style of offense too different from the NFL--then the Bills would be well-advised to look to non-Leach teams for their QB draft picks.

After the Bengals drafted Carson Palmer, they kept him as their third string QB his whole rookie year. That gave him the chance to learn the playbook and get better, without the pressure of being thrust into a game situation right away. He made considerable progress over the course of that year, and was well-prepared to assume the starter's position at the beginning of his second year. What I'm saying here is that Brohm's current third string status doesn't indicate anything--either positive or negative--about how his long-term potential is perceived by this front office. The biggest positive with this guy is what he'd achieved in college, and the most serious concerns are that he was beaten out in Green Bay, and that he spent (most?) of the season on Green Bay's practice squad--available to everyone, signed by no one.

I strongly disagree with the bolded statement. Losman fit the mold of a prototypical QB bust: he had great physical traits, but hadn't proven himself as a pocket passer at the college level. Back when Losman was drafted, Dave Wannestadt said that he wouldn't take Losman with the last pick of the seventh round. When a lot of people talk about a quarterback's "potential," they are referring specifically to his physical potential. His arm strength. His height. His speed. Joe Montana lasted until the third round of the draft precisely because he was lacking in some of those areas. Montana also demonstrates that a quarterback's potential doesn't consist of arm strength or foot speed, but rather of that which is between the quarterback's ears. Losman has never at any point demonstrated significant potential in that latter, more important category. The only two reasons we're still talking about him are because there are those enamored with his physical traits, and because there are those who have made a significant emotional investment in his succeeding.

This.

I don't follow college ball, but if your post is even close to being accurate, the Bills should definitely lose their next four games. And potentially consider trading up to get this guy. When you don't have a quarterback, and there's a franchise quarterback available, you pay the price you need to pay to get him.

If you think the Bills will mess up their picks no matter where they are in the draft, you basically have two choices: 1) give up hope now, or 2) focus on getting a good GM in here to start making good use of our picks! That good GM is going to be a lot better off with early picks than later ones.

Fixed!

So you want a good front office. Which means (I assume) that you want a lot of the people currently working for the front office fired. Which scenario do you think maximizes the chances of those guys getting fired: a 4-12 record or an 8-8 record?

I agree that Palmer is a step or two down from Manning. But that does not indicate that draft position seldom matters! Look at the 2004 draft. Eli Manning went first overall, Philip Rivers fourth overall, and Ben Roethlisberger eleventh overall. After you got out of the top 15, who else was there, quarterback-wise, that year? Losman went 23rd overall, but it's not exactly as though he's had a Hall of Fame career. More generally, how often do you see a top level quarterback who wasn't picked in the top 15 of the draft? Tom Brady was a sixth round pick, and Drew Brees was chosen very early in the second round. But guys like that are the exceptions. Normally if you want a Peyton Manning, an Eli Manning, a Philip Rivers, or a Matt Ryan, you're going to have to take him in the top 15; and very often in the top 5.

If you want to see this board at its most retarded, I suggest you review your own previous posts about draft position and winning games.

I strongly disagree with the bolded statement. A while back, Bill Polian had the first overall pick in the draft. Instead of trading down, he stayed put and took Peyton Manning. Do you care to explain to him that it didn't matter where he drafted? A few years later, Polian had the fourth overall pick in the draft. Mike Ditka wanted Ricky Williams, and offered Polan a king's ransom in exchange for trading down a few slots. Polian refused, stayed at fourth overall, and took Edgerrin James. Or take the Patriots, which traded away two picks in the lower part of the first round to obtain just one top ten pick. Draft position does matter!

I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway. I'm interested in core groups of players which have made it to multiple Super Bowls. Below is that list: 1970s Steelers: Terry Bradshaw Vikings: Fran Tarkenton Dolphins: Bob Griese 1980s 49ers: Joe Montana Broncos: John Elway 1990s Buffalo Bills: Jim Kelly Dallas Cowboys: Troy Aikman Denver Broncos: John Elway :| 2000s New England Patriots: Tom Brady St. Louis Rams: Kurt Warner (late '90s - early 2000s) Steelers: Ben Roethlisberger Literally every quarterback on that list is a current or future Hall of Famer (assuming Kurt Warner makes it in). You could point out that you don't necessarily need your team to win multiple Super Bowls--you just need to come away with one Super Bowl win. But even just one Super Bowl appearance/win is a best-case scenario if you don't have an elite level quarterback. Everything has to go exactly right for you to even achieve that! Take the Ravens of 2000, for example. They had arguably the best defense in NFL history, a very good offensive line led by Jon Ogden, an excellent RB in Jamal Lewis. Yet that group of players only made it to one Super Bowl, because of their lack of a quarterback. And there's no guarantee that some future Ravens-like team would even manage that one Super Bowl appearance. The Ravens had to conceal their weakness at QB by being almost completely dominant at everything else. That doesn't leave much of a margin of error, for injuries, bad breaks, or other stuff going wrong. But take a team like the Steelers of the '70s, which won four Super Bowls. They had a dominant defense and a dominant running game. But sometimes even a dominant running game gets shut down, and a dominant defense allows more points than it should. When those things happened, the Steelers could count on guys like Terry Bradshaw and Lynn Swan to score the points they needed to win postseason games. The strength of the Steelers' passing attack gave them another way to win games--a way the Ravens of the 2000s didn't have. Both teams' plan A was to run the ball and win with defense. But unlike the Ravens, the Steelers had a very viable plan B--to win the game with passing. It's that difference which explains why the Steelers of the '70s won four times as many Super Bowls as did the Ravens of the 2000s.

I can!!! We need the draft position.

If a team doesn't have a QB--and the Bills don't--that team simply can't afford to pass on a QB if there's a Matt Ryan sitting there when that team picks. Period. I agree that if were to add a QB today, he'd get killed behind the joke of our line. So let the newly drafted QB sit his rookie year! Use other draft picks to shore up the offensive line! Worry about the defense later--after you've gotten your QB and offensive line shored up. However, if there isn't a QB worth taking when we pick, then I'm all in favor of drafting one of the other positions you mentioned.