Orton's Arm

Early in Shanahan's Denver tenure, he was just the head coach. Then at some point they made him head coach/GM. I think things started going downhill at or somewhat after that point. I like Shanahan as a head coach but not as a GM. If he'd accept a head coach-only type position, I'd say we definitely pull the trigger. If he demands to be GM too, we should pass. A good GM (which Shanahan is not) is even more important than a good head coach (which Shanahan clearly is).

Unfortunately, liberal spending is exactly what this team can't afford. The salary cap has risen considerably these past few years, even though shared revenues have remained stagnant. I read something indicating that if this team were to spend up to the true salary cap, it would lose money. Hence its "cash to the cap" self-imposed spending limit. A good GM needs to be able to stretch dollars and make them go further; a trait Shanahan hadn't displayed in his GM role back in Denver. Agreed. But under Russ Brandon, you won't see a third round pick get squandered on Maurice Clarett. If you look at Shanahan's head coaching record overall, it's very impressive. But in his last three years in Denver, he averaged about 8 wins a season. One possible explanation for this drop-off in wins is that the quality of the coaching declined. This doesn't seem likely, because they had the same guy as head coach throughout. Another possible explanation is that the drop-off in wins was due to Shanahan's work as general manager. Suppose that the inflow of talent (from drafts, signings, etc.) failed to equal the outflow of talent (free agency losses, retirements, guys getting old/washed up, etc.). You'd expect to see a gradual decline in the team's record, until it reached its new, lower level, steady state. I think that's more or less what we witnessed. No one has to sell me on the idea of Shanahan as a head coach!! But I don't think he'd be an optimal general manager. If he tries to do both, he'll likely succeed at neither.

Rumor has it that I may have an interest in stepping into coaching, specifically in Buffalo. I've never coached a team before, on any level. I don't know the first thing about where I'd begin. I'd likely be a disaster as a coach. But not a disaster of Jerry Glanville proportions!!

That's a very strong post. I agree with all of it except point #8. Shanahan as coach = exactly what this team needs. Shanahan as GM = not good. His mistakes as a GM are what got him fired from Denver. No need to go down that road again.

Exactly. A guy like Shanahan is likely to be focused on winning the Super Bowl. He knows that to do that, he's going to have to be able to beat the tough teams of the AFC East. So you can't be scared to be in the same division as them.

If a guy's in a really lousy relationship, just about any woman seems like an immediate, significant upgrade. Which means that guy is going to be tempted to be . . . not picky enough. Another temptation is to identify the one trait of his current girlfriend which annoys or disappoints him the most, and begin dating a woman who's the opposite in that respect. What I'm getting at here is that we shouldn't base this coaching decision on trying to be the antithesis of what's wrong with our current coaching staff. We should base it on whatever positive traits potential replacements can bring to Buffalo. As someone's already pointed out, Shanahan's teams tend to have a lot of success running the ball. We're talking actual success; as opposed to merely a grim commitment to "stick with the run" whether it's working or not. (Which is what Schottenheimer would bring.) Also, Shanahan's successes have come with sixth round draft picks and other guys you've never heard of running the ball; as opposed to having the luxury of a LaDanian Tomlinson over in San Diego. Another thing I like about Shanahan is that whatever blocking scheme he uses for his offensive line seems to work very well in both run blocking and pass protection. That scheme is well-suited to the athletic, nimble players we currently have on our line. We'd get better offensive line play from a Shanahan-coached team than from one coached by Schottenheimer. Edit: I looked at Denver's drafting from 1990 - 2007. During that span, they used one first round pick on their offensive line (T, 2003), and one second-round pick (C, 1999). I think that Denver's offensive lines have been very good, especially considering that they were mostly built with guys chosen in round 3 or lower. That said, I'm very open to the idea of using the Bills' first round pick on a LT in the 2010 draft. On defense, Shanahan would switch the Bills to a 3-4!!! I realize not all 3-4s are created equal; and that Denver's version might not be as good as the Wade Phillips version or the Bill Belichick version. Still, just about any 3-4 would be a significant improvement over the "bend and slowly break" Tampa-2 defense we're currently running. As well as being probably a better fit for Aaron Maybin than our current 4-3.

I'm not sold on Schottenheimer. His teams do well in the regular season, but typically don't go very far in the playoffs. He has a good concept of the fundamentals of football--which is a very solid foundation. But for a team to go far in the playoffs, it either needs a) an overwhelming talent advantage, or b) a coaching staff that can at least hold its own WRT mental chess matches against the best coaches in the league. I don't necessarily put Schottenheimer in that category. I think that Shanahan is in that category--at least on offense. Not that our next head coach has to be Shanahan--I'd be happy with someone else with a similar or better gift at winning mental chess matches.

I'd love for this stuff to pan out. If we hire Shanahan as head coach and Chris Polian as general manager, I'll be a very happy man!!!

Excellent post as usual, Bill. I hated the injury to Wood. My prayers are with him. I agree that this team played with a lot of heart, but that it was out-coached. Speaking of coaching, I don't think Perry was even good enough to remain as our defensive coordinator. I don't understand why some posters feel he deserves to be promoted to head coach. Just because he seems more in control of the situation than our last head coach, does not mean he's the long-term answer we're looking for! Let's get a cerebral--or even a brilliant--head coach: someone who's smart enough to take on Bill Belichick in a coaching chess match.

You've suggested two ideas here: bringing in Losman and bringing in Jeff George. I'd lump those two ideas into the same general category.

I think the Bills should probably do one of the following: 1. Stay put and draft a QB or LT. (Assuming they don't have to reach for one.) 2. Trade down. 3. Draft a DL. 4. Draft a WR. I'm not thrilled about option 3, and am even less so about option 4. It just makes so much more sense to get your QB and lines in order before you scamper off with drafting WRs. But this team does need another WR; albeit less urgently than some other positions. While I like the idea of a LT/QB with the first round pick, I do not want to see this team reach for need!

In other news, This is excellent news!!! The upcoming loss to Jacksonville is so close I can almost taste it. I'd love to see this team go 0-7 over the final stretch, and end the year with a 3-13 record. Then on draft day, the real excitement will begin! Draft day is like Christmas morning, except a few months late. The earlier we pick, the better the presents are likely to be.

Please. Joke about torturing animals, or blowing up buildings, or poison in the water supply. Please joke about anything, as long as it's less bad than taking a DB in the first round!!!

The Bills' quarterback situation is currently broken. They can write off any hope of going deep into the playoffs until they get that problem fixed. Period. How often do you see a top-notch quarterback who didn't come from the first round? Yeah, Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round, but that was back in 2000. How many Tom Brady stories have there been since then? Drew Brees was taken very early in the second round. I'm sure there are some other cases of good quarterbacks having been taken later than round #1. But not many. Not many at all.

I voted for Shanahan. Above all, this team's offense needs to be fixed. Mike Shanahan is the one man I trust to do that fixing.

No, I think you're right. Which isn't very encouraging, at least not from the perspective of Fewell as a potential head coach. My dream would be for the Bills to get an offense guy--like Mike Shanahan--to be the head coach, and for them to hire a real GM. Someone other than Brandon to stop Shanahan from messing things up on that side of the street.

I (mostly) agree with the bolded text. But there are two X factors in this equation. One is Brohm, and how well he does in practice between now and the end of the season. The other is whether a non-reach QB will be available for us when we pick. Ultimately, the question the Bills have to ask themselves is, "will the best QB available when they pick be likely to have a significantly better career than Brohm?" The other factor to weigh into the equation is that the Bills need a LT, and the first round of the 2010 draft will be a great time to get one.

Believe me, if Chris Polian wanted to even consider the idea of coming here, I'd go for it in a heartbeat! No question there. The main problem is that there seems to be a succession plan in Indy, with the idea being that Chris gets to take over for his father once the latter hangs up his business shoes. My understanding is that Chris is quite comfortable with his present situation, and has no inclination to start looking for non-Indy GM positions. But if we could get him, then no question but that we should pull the trigger!

Trust me: Albany is not a Losman fan!

Using first round picks on CBs who go first contract and out--as the Bills have done all too often in the past--will hamstring your franchise. Reaching for a safety at #8 overall, based on "need," at a point in the draft when there were better football players available, and positions of greater importance to be filled, will do serious hurt to your franchise. By the year 2000--perhaps earlier--the Ravens were able to protect their quarterback, block for the run, and dominate with their defensive front seven. If your team can do those things, then in hindsight spending a couple of top ten picks on CBs looks like a luxury which you were able to afford. But if the defensive front seven is mediocre, if your quarterback's getting killed, and if your early first round DBs are playing 15 yards off the ball, then a decision to invest draft picks first and foremost in your defensive secondary doesn't look so good.

A solid post. I agree that until Butler proves he can stay healthy, any upgrade he can provide over Walker will remain hypothetical. Also, I admit to having a tendency to discount the short-term too much while looking at the long-term. And I admit that in this case, however well things work out in the long term, in the short run this "offensive line" is getting our quarterbacks killed. Even if Edwards' career would have failed anyway, even with a good line, I still think it's our responsibility to keep him out of a coma. One last thing: calling Walker "our best lineman" isn't a compliment to him: it's a condemnation of the other four linemen's play. (Though I'd argue that that condemnation is unfair to Butler, either as a RG or a RT.)

Once Losman leads his team to a loss in the UFL's equivalent of the Super Bowl, Bills fans will clamor for his return here. They'll say he's a natural fit!

Agreed. Someone asked Shefter: > You know shanahan..would he even consider the Bills? To which Shefter replied: > He's listening, isn't he?

I agree that whoever we hire as head coach shouldn't get GM powers. They're just not very good GMs. That said, Brandon had a very good draft earlier this year. I'm not necessarily convinced the Bills need a GM; though I'm open to the idea of upgrading ourselves at that position.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are attributing the movement of Walker to the LT position, and his subsequent release from the roster, as part of the Peters trade. Meaning, that if the Peters trade didn't happen, Butler stays at RG, Walker at RT, Peters at LT; so our only OL needs are at LG and C. Drafting Levitre and signing Hangartner would have filled those two needs. The initial trading away of Peters opened up a hole at the RG spot, because Butler had been moved from RG to RT, and Walker from RT to LT. Then when Walker didn't work out at LT, there was a hole there too. Your argument hinges on the fact that Langston Walker was considered a somewhat useful member of the Bills' OL before the Peters trade, and was released due to its aftermath. It's the release of Langston Walker that opened up the additional hole you've described. I'll agree that over the short-term, that additional hole on the offensive line really hurt us. For some (i.e., Bills quarterbacks) the pain was not just metaphorical. But long-term, are guys like Langston Walker really the kinds of players around which you want to build your football team? Overpaid, overweight, slow, underachieving, . . . The Bills will probably need to use their first round pick in the 2010 draft on a LT. But assuming the LT they pick works out well, he'll be an upgrade over Peters. Plus they'll have upgraded the RT spot (Butler over Walker) and, possibly, their RG spot (Wood over Butler). These upgrades are partially self-funded. By that I mean that the team traded away an offensive lineman to get a first round pick which it put right back into the offensive line. That part of it's a wash. The net cost to the team for the upgrades, in terms of draft picks, will be the first round LT we'll hopefully be seeing in 2010. Are the three upgrades I've described worth that net cost? I believe they will be, but my opinion is contingent on how well the players actually play.