Orton's Arm

I'm not arguing, as you claim, that "high picks by good teams = good players." I'm stating that high picks by good general managers = good players. There's a difference. If Bill Polian has just been put in charge of a 1-15 team, you can expect good draft picks, even though the team is lousy. If Matt Millen has just been put in charge of a 13-3 team, the draft picks will likely stink, even though the team is good. In one case, the Patriots traded away two picks in the lower first round to get just one top 10 draft pick. Another time they traded away their pick in the lower first round to get San Francisco's pick in the subsequent draft. (San Francisco's pick turned out to be a lot earlier in the draft than the Patriots' pick had been.) To take another example, Mike Ditka wanted Ricky Williams, and offered Bill Polian a king's ransom in exchange for the Colts trading down. Bill Polian refused, remained at 4th overall, and took Edgerrin James. Nor did Polian trade down when he had the first overall pick. Instead he stayed put, and drafted Peyton Manning. The general managers of the best-run teams in the league behave as though early first round picks are worth more than picks later in the first round. Please explain why you disagree with these general managers, and why you think that a pick in the lower part of the first round is just as useful as a top 10 or top 15 pick.

Um . . . it looks like your post is a response to things that people other than me have written. I didn't make the "giving up a first round pick for Peters' replacement" argument--an argument with which you've (correctly) disagreed in your post. Nor do I feel any overwhelming love for Peters, whether "inexplicable" or otherwise! The way I look at the Peters trade is this: we traded away a player for a first and fourth round pick. Sure, I would have loved it if that first round pick could have been a top-15 pick or even a top 10 pick. Based on Peters' talent level, that's clearly what his trade value would have been worth. But his passion for football, or lack thereof, brings down his trade value. A pick in the lower part of the first round seems about right, value-wise.

Your approach sounds fair enough, though I suspect there may still be points of disagreement. In the absence of hard data, it's hard to evaluate who is responsible for what, behind the scenes. Meaning that if something bad happens when Marv (for example) is the GM, was that mistake Marv's idea, or a decision someone else made that Marv passively went along with? There's little way for us, as fans, to know the answers to those kinds of questions. So all we can do is say, "X mistake happened on Marv's watch," "Y mistake happened on Brandon's watch," etc. The decision to trade away Peters may or may not have been reasonable, based on his attitude, his willingness to play to his potential, and what we got in return. The problem wasn't necessarily the Peters trade per se, but the lack of a viable replacement plan. Plan A seems to have been to move Walker to LT; a position for which most fans could see he was manifestly unsuited. That fact also seems to have dawned on the Bills' front office a couple weeks before the season started; resulting in Walker's release. Plan B was to go with Bell, who has embarrassed himself, and endangered his quarterback, with his putrid play at the LT position. The trading away of Peters--and the absence of a viable replacement plan--happened on Brandon's watch. I don't know how much input Brandon had into the decisions that led to that result. A number of positive things have also happened on his watch, such as the drafting of Levitre, Wood, Byrd, and Nelson, and the extension of McGee. Either Brandon is in charge, in which case he deserves credit for the good, and blame for the bad, things which have happened on his watch. Or he isn't in charge, in which case he deserves neither credit nor blame. But to return to my main point: the LT debacle happened while Brandon was in charge; and that catastrophe is one of the four reasons I'd mentioned earlier for T.O.'s lack of success.

We'll also get Butler back from injury, thus fixing the RT spot. But there are no LTs on the roster as of now, and we need to take one early. On the other hand, I don't see how this team can afford to pass up a franchise quarterback, if he's there to be taken when we pick. If we stare at the draft board, and see a Matt Ryan starting back at us, how do we not take that guy? Maybe a QB in round 1 and a LT in round 2? Or if we're confident in Brohm, we could take the LT in round 1, and not bother with a quarterback.

I disagree, at least in part, with the bolded text. Edwards' poor play is merely one of several factors in why T.O. hasn't worked out. Another is the offensive line, and its failure to pass protect. (Especially from the tackle positions.) A third factor is T.O. himself. He drops far too many passes. A fourth factor--and one that's in the process of being fixed--is the coaching staff. If you let a guy like T.O. miss Friday practices, it's going to be tougher for he and the quarterback to be on the same page on Sundays.

There's some truth to what you're saying here (though Nelson is a TE, not an o-line stud). Peters has the talent to be among the very best LTs in the league. But I'm concerned about his motivation, his desire, his "how much have you paid me lately?" attitude. A guy like that seems like he might stop trying, or not try as hard, once he'd managed to cash in big time. Wood and Nelson are young, promising players who ought to be solid parts of this franchise for many long years to come. As football players, each stands a very good chance of being as good as Peters. Not because they have his level of talent, but because they get the most out of the talent they do have. There are two things that bug me though. One is that the LT position is a lot harder to fill than either an offensive guard slot or the TE position. The other is that there isn't even a backup-level LT on the roster. I realize that Edwards has very little, and Fitzpatrick no, chance of being the long-term answer at QB. But that doesn't mean I want to see either guy in a coma! Which is exactly what we will witness unless the LT position is addressed. Once that gaping hole has been plugged, the Bills will seem a little less like the Titanic. And I'll probably end up feeling more positive about the Peters trade than I do now.

Wow! That third link in particular really sounded encouraging! With this guy on board, it's very tempting to go OL in the 2010 draft. And when I say "go OL" I mean go OL!!! As in the following: 1. LT. Bell is not the answer. 2. Interior OL. Hangartner is, I think, the 32nd rated center in the league. We can either put the interior OL at center and bench Hangartner, or we can move Wood to center and start the interior OL at guard. 3. Front 7 defensive player. 4. RT. Butler gets hurt too often, so it's important to have quality depth at the RT position.

True. But Russell fits the profile of a first round QB bust: a guy who was selected more because of his physical gifts, than because he'd become an accomplished, polished pocket passer at the college level. The scouting report for Brohm which the OP found was the opposite. It sounds like Brohm succeeded as a pocket passer in college. There was another quarterback who succeeded at the college level as a pocket passer, but who struggled early on in the NFL. His team ultimately gave up on him. His name was Drew Brees. By no means am I guaranteeing that Brohm will become the next Drew Brees story. He is, however, more likely to be a Drew Brees story than Losman had been a few years ago. Losman was selected because of his physical gifts, and despite his lack of a solid pocket passing track record in college. Losman was the anti-Drew Brees. For now, I think we should take a middle of the road approach to Brohm; avoiding the Scylla of getting our hopes up too high too quickly, and the Charybdis of being quick to assume he'll be the next in our long series of QB failures. Brohm is a young man with a good college resume who probably didn't get a very good chance to prove himself in Green Bay. Let's see how well he does with the opportunity he's been given in Buffalo.

That's an excellent point. All those top 10 picks to which you referred were pivotal components in the Ravens' Super Bowl winning team of 2000. 1996: 4th overall: Jon Ogden, LT 1997: 4th overall: Peter Boulware, OLB 1998: 10th overall: Duane Starks, CB 1999: 10th overall: Chris McAllister, CB 2000: 5th overall: Jamal Lewis, RB

If it makes you feel any better, the last time the Bills signed a quarterback Green Bay didn't want, we got . . . well, never mind. I agree that Brohm's having fallen in the draft was a warning sign, and his relegation to Green Bay's practice squad is a more serious one. But like you said, the Bills have little to loose here.

Do you know what was really utterly predictable about this discussion? No? Well, I'll tell you in a bit. But first I'll address the points you've made. The problem the Lions had wasn't where they were picking in the draft. It was that they had Matt Millen doing the picking. Do you want to see good draft picks? Take a good GM, and give him picks very early in the draft. That doesn't happen very often, because good GMs' teams tend to win more often than they lose. But when it does, watch out! Bill Polian certainly qualifies as a good GM; and he's used the first overall pick to take Peyton Manning. That's a clear case where losing games over the short-term has turned into more wins over the long run. Or perhaps you'd argue that the Colts would have had had just as many wins with some other QB picked 20th or 30th overall at the helm? As for the Patriots: they often have a tendency to trade away current draft picks or players for future draft picks. The Bills witnessed this when we traded away our first round pick for Drew Bledsoe. They also traded away a WR, I think to Seattle, in exchange for a first round pick. Then there was the time they managed to get San Francisco's first round pick, which was early in the draft, I think by having traded away their own first round pick the previous year. They recently traded away a defensive lineman for someone's first round pick. There are probably one or two other trades like that which I'm forgetting. As a result of these kinds of trades, the Patriots have ended up with earlier draft picks than you'd expect based on their record. Below is a list of the players the Patriots have drafted in the top 15, starting with the year 2001: 2001: 6th overall: Richard Seymour, DT 2003: 13th overall: Ty Warren, DE 2008: 10th overall: Jerod Mayo, ILB That's three very good football players! Now look at the first round picks the Patriots have had during that span with non-top 15 picks. 2002: 21st overall: Daniel Graham, TE 2004: 21st overall: Vince Wilfork, NT 2004: 32nd overall: Ben Watson, TE 2005: 32nd overall: Logan Mankins, G 2006: 21st overall: Laurence Maroney, RB 2007: 24th overall: Brandon Meriweather, DB There are some good football players in that group, but there are also some lesser players who bring down its overall average. At least over the past decade, the Patriots have done better with picks in the top 15 than with picks in the second half of the first round. You seem to think that "winning begets winning." I'd argue that good football players and a good coaching staff beget winning. If you want good football players, you're most likely to find them in the top half of the draft. Which is why the last thing this team needs is a few meaningless wins to close out the year.

Peyton Manning also decided to give his college football team four years, despite the chance to come out early and make a ton of money. By no means am I suggesting Brohm will become the next Peyton Manning. There are some red flags here, most notably the fact he'd been demoted to Green Bay's practice squad. But I don't see the decision to spend that extra year in college as one of those red flags. I've heard it said that a quarterback who plays in college for four years learns things which make subsequent success in the NFL significantly more likely.

Back in 2001, the Bills played the Carolina Panthers. I really, really, really wanted the Bills to lose that game, to help their position in the draft. Instead they won! In the subsequent draft, the Carolina Panthers used the second overall pick to take Julius Peppers. Picking fourth overall, the Bills chose Mike Williams. More generally, higher draft picks are associated not just with better football players but with safer players. Meaning, that the first overall pick is more likely to be a non-bust than the tenth or twentieth overall pick. An early pick is also often associated with the opportunity to trade down. The trade-down opportunity gives you a first round pick similar to the one you would have had with a few extra meaningless wins, plus it gives you bonus picks or players for your trouble. A bonus you wouldn't have had had you gone the "meaningless wins" route. These are the clear benefits of eschewing meaningless wins. The main benefit to getting those meaningless wins is that they might help morale among your current players. Current players who, in many cases, need to be replaced anyway.

There is no torpedo that sinks my ship! I didn't characterize the move as something intended to create immediate sales among fans desperate to see a Fewell-coached team. I described it as the first step in repairing a seriously damaged relationship between Wilson and Bills fans. A repair job that was best started sooner rather than later, before the damage to that relationship became any worse. In the days and weeks leading up to this firing, you had people who'd been Bills fans for decades--who had never missed a game--indicate that, for the first time, they felt apathy about this team. There were posts along the lines of, "for the first time in twenty years, I've missed a Bills game." Others indicated that any excuse would be sufficient to pull them away from the games. The Bills were in legitimate danger of losing a significant portion of their fans. Once you loose those people--once they stop caring--it can be hard to win them back. What made the situation worse was that Bills fans already got suckered with the T.O. signing. A lot of people invested money, not to mention emotional energy, into this team that they otherwise wouldn't have, thanks to that signing. The spirit of disillusionment was all the greater when it became clear that T.O. would not solve this team's problems. The Buffalo Bills are a business, just like any other. Bills fans are the customers. As is the case with any business, the Bills can't afford to ignore what their customers want. With Jauron's approval rating consistently in the single digits, with billboards about firing him popping up, it was clear that this time, Bills fans would demand more than the window dressing of a T.O. signing to rekindle their interest in this football team. The firing of Jauron is the kind of substantive change without which fan relations could not be repaired.

Thanks!

You bring up a good point about the mood in the locker room. We have some information that things were starting to get ugly, at least in terms of the moods of some players. But there were other players who still, IIRC, voiced support for Jauron. On the other hand, don't underestimate the influence fans played in this decision. I'll grant that Ralph probably wouldn't loose too much sleep over doing something that would irk the fans a little bit. Especially if he had good reason to believe that the team was on the right track over the long run. But the mood among the fan base went well beyond just that. Bills fans were on the verge of outright mutiny or desertion. As expressed in their future plans to not renew their season tickets. As expressed in current boycotts of Bills' merchandise. And anything else they could do to hit Ralph smack in the middle of his pocketbook, to force him to listen. It's my belief that the financial punishment that Bills fans were prepared to inflict would have significantly exceeded the punishment of paying Jauron not to coach. Frankly, the anger of Bills fans was reasonable. This team hasn't made the playoffs since the '90s, despite the loyalty of its fan base. That lack of success--and Ralph's role in having created it--has weakened his relationship with Bills fans. A relationship which he has now begun to repair.

Can't say I blame him. And maybe he'll turn the Bills down also. But if it were me, I'd rather work for Ralph than for Snyder.

Have you explained this theory to Derek Anderson?

I think they made this move now, not for football reasons, but due to growing disillusionment among fans. The mood was turning ugly, cynical, and apathetic, even by the lofty standards of Bills fans. Ralph had to do something to prove to Bills fans that he would not accept mediocrity. He needed to restore the credibility of this organization in the eyes of its fans. From a strictly football perspective, the Jauron firing could easily have waited until the end of the season. But doing the firing now sends a message to Bills fans that Ralph cares about winning, and isn't prepared to accept mediocrity indefinitely. It's the first in a series of steps he needs to take to change the mood of the Bills' fan base, before that mood spirals totally out of control. Doing this was the only way he could prove to Bills fans that Jauron wouldn't be here next season. I admit that I'd just as soon do without the drama of Perry Fewell trying to turn the next seven games into a permanent head coaching opportunity. If anything, this team needs to lose the next seven games to improve its standing in the draft. The possibility of winning a chunk of those games is the main downside. But quite frankly, this team's problems are bad enough that the possibility of winning more than a couple of those games is remote.

Maybin would probably be a better fit for a 3-4 OLB than he is as a DE in a 4-3. Schobel is nearing the end of his career, so finding just the right fit for him isn't as important for the long-term future of this team. That said, I think he'd be a decent stopgap measure for a year or two, which I think is all the other poster was getting at. Transitioning to a 3-4 would come at a price. Specifically, the Schobels of the team would be a little out of position over the short term. But I think that price would be worth paying anyway. For one thing, guys like that are old enough that they won't be with us very long anyway. For another, a 3-4 defense would be a significant upgrade to the defensive scheme currently in place.

No argument there. It's also important to remember that the front office we have right now just finished drafting guys like Wood, Levitre, Nelson, and (perhaps best of all) Byrd. Sure, an upgrade to the front office would be nice. But it's not like we're in the position of a drowning man who needs to grasp at anything to help keep himself afloat. If the right front office guy isn't available, we can always stick with the team we have for another draft.

I'm convinced that Byrd had the following conversation with one of his friends. Since I don't know the friend's name, I'll just call him Cat. Byrd: I'm excited to be going into the NFL. Cat: Yeah. Byrd: But if I'm going to have a good career, it's important for me to set ambitious goals. Cat: Well, you could always try to get into the Hall of Fame. Byrd: Yeah. But I want a goal that's even more ambitious than that! Cat: More ambitious? Byrd: Yeah. What is the most ambitious goal I could possibly have? Cat: You're serious here? Byrd: Yeah. Cat: Well, okay. But what I'm about to tell you is a little outlandish here. Unrealistic. More of a pie-in-the-sky thing than anything else. Byrd: Yeah, that's fine. Just go ahead and say it. Cat: Okay then. The most ambitious career goal you could possibly have is to play well enough that Bill from NYC will decide that the Bills were better off drafting you than they would have been either with an offensive lineman or with Carolina's first round pick. Byrd: Who on earth is Bill from NYC? Cat: Never mind that. You asked what was the most ambitious possible career goal you could have, and I told you. Byrd: What do I have to do to make that goal a reality? Cat: You're going to have to intercept more passes than you'd expect from an entire NFL defense. You're going to have to become a one man machine who single-handedly either wins games on his own, or at least keeps his team in games they have no business being in. Byrd: In that case, I may as well get started.

I think you meant leery, not weary. But you're right: the Maurice Clarett debacle was a clear case in which a) Shanahan messed up, GM-wise, and b) TD didn't. Every time someone from NFL.com needed a negative quote about Clarett, they could always count on TD to give them something pithy. If even TD displayed better general manager skills than Shanahan, then maybe you'd want someone else in charge of the front office.

I disagree. I think there were several reasons why the 3-4 defense was dismantled: 1. The new coaching staff wasn't familiar with it. They naturally trusted something with which they had years of experience, and had seen to work, more than they trusted/understood a defensive system with which they were unfamiliar. 2. You could make the argument that a good coach, like Bill Belichick, is able to adapt his defense to his players and to attacking the other team's weaknesses. But neither Jerry Gray nor even Williams were good enough to do that. They were at the lower, "stick with what you know" level. 3. A lot of the players from the late '90s Bills defense were either aging, or were young but not very good. I can't think of any first-rate young defensive players who left or were cut, who went on to have significant success elsewhere. The real mistake was TD's decision to narrow his list of head coaching candidates down to four guys with defensive backgrounds. The Bills' 3-4 defensive scheme was just fine. It was considerably better, in fact, than any of the subsequent schemes which have been used in an attempt to replace it. TD should have narrowed his list of coaching candidates down to only guys with offensive backgrounds. The kinds of guys most likely to fix the offense (which was in a shambles) while leaving the defensive scheme alone.

Agreed. Like Marv Levy, Shanahan is better as a coach than as a GM.