Orton's Arm

I agree those four positions are our biggest needs. Let's see how a draft focusing only on those positions might look: 1. QB 2. LT 3. OLB 4. DL 5. OT 6. OT 7. best player available I realize that DL is arguably a more important hole to fill than OLB. But I suspect that a 3rd round OLB is more likely to become a solid starter than a third round DL. To me, the latter factor outweighs the former. Take the OLB in the third round, fill that hole, and worry about the DL in 2011. The problem with grabbing a DL in round 4 is that he'd be likely nothing more than a depth player. I'm not even sure where we'd put that depth player. Who's the one defensive lineman that we should focus on getting rid of? Is that guy bad enough that a fourth round pick would be a significant upgrade? You could make the argument that we have sufficient depth on the DL already. That the Bills should either use an early pick on a starting-quality DL, or shouldn't draft a DL at all. The offensive tackles in rounds 5 and 6 are necessary, because it's become clear that guys like Bell, Meredith, etc. are unacceptable even as backups. It might make sense to avoid drafting the above-mentioned depth-DL, in order to take the depth OTs a round earlier.

Okay! There's no way this team can afford to use an early pick on a RB. Not with the gaping holes at LT, QB, and elsewhere. I'm not saying Lynch is an ideal RB, and your criticisms of him have some merit. But that's going to have to be one area in which we simply accept/live with the imperfections we have, because we don't have the draft picks with which to fix them.

That's not reassuring!

If you have a TE who's great at blocking but stinks as a receiver, should the offensive coordinator use him as a blocker, a receiver, or both? Royal could have been a solid member of this team, if used in a way which played to his strength (blocking) while minimizing his weakness (receiving). It's not his fault that the coaching staff tried to make him into something he's not: namely, a complete TE. I'll be the first to grant that if you use a TE only as a blocker, it makes your offense a lot more predictable. Having him run a few routes, here and there, would help keep defenses guessing. But the coaching staff went way too far in that direction, and put Royal in a position to fail. Robert Royal is no more a pass catching TE than Langston Walker is a LT.

Maybe in twenty-five or thirty years we'll find out . . .

Back in the late 1700s, there were few if any professional attorneys here in the U.S. If you got a law degree, it was typically because you intended to run for a public office such as the state legislature. Nowadays, of course, we see plenty of attorneys. They're falling down from the skies, emerging from the woodwork, rising to street level whenever the water level in the sewers gets high enough. They're everywhere! Just five minutes ago, I grabbed some food from one of my kitchen cupboards. I opened the cupboard door to find an attorney inside; who promptly presented me with a bill. It's a good thing we have all those attorneys! Obviously, government is a lot more limited today than it was in the late 1700s, back before all those lawyers appeared! They're obviously doing a great job of keeping the government in check! Oh, oh, let's not forget the wonderful effect they're having on the criminal justice system. Take the OJ case, for example. How might that have gone in a world without lawyers? A study has indicated that for every additional attorney you add to the economy, you destroy $1 million a year in economic value. There is, unfortunately, a price to be paid for all the wonderful things attorneys bring. But if you ask me, it's worth that price, ten times over!!

We've been saying we need an offensive line ever since the Kent Hull/Jim Ritcher group hung up their cleats. Which is to say that we've never replaced the offensive linemen we had back when the Bills were in the Super Bowl. Obviously that's got to change. Going into the first round of the 2010 draft, the Bills' two biggest needs will be at LT (gaping hole) and, probably, QB. I'm a little more hesitant about taking a QB, both because I'd like to use that pick on a LT, and because it's hard to evaluate Edwards when he doesn't have an offensive line. On the other hand, Edwards hasn't looked good this season at all. And it looks like the Bills will be picking in the top 5 of the draft; giving us access to a higher level of QB prospect than we're used to seeing on draft day. If we don't get our QB of the future in 2010, we might have to wait a long time before he finally appears. On the other hand, if we take a QB with our first round pick, make him sit all year (as rookie QBs always should), and Edwards plays well, then we could always trade Edwards away for some pretty good draft picks. So right now, I'm leaning toward a QB with that first round pick, assuming that a QB is reasonably close to being the best player available when the Bills pick. Which would mean that the Bills would have to go LT in the second round. They'd have to pick up more OTs on the second day of the draft, because it's obvious we have no depth at the position.

I understand that the impulse is always to hope for wins. But wins, right now, are exactly what we don't need. There's no way the 2009 Bills are going to the playoffs. None. So the only thing a win provides is an excuse to Ralph to stick with Jauron for yet another season, and thereby get out of eating some of that contract. Oh, and a win hurts us in the draft. One year, the Bills and the Panthers were two of the worst teams in the league. They played each other, and the Bills won! Because of that accursed win, the Bills picked fourth overall. The Panthers picked second. The Panthers used their pick on Julius Peppers. Two spots later, the Bills chose Mike Williams. I realize that's an extreme example, and that winning won't always hurt you as much as it might imply. But it can! For example, Peyton Manning was chosen first overall in the draft. The second player taken that year? Ryan Leaf! I'd like nothing better than to see this team go 1-15. 1-15 gets us a new head coach, a new offensive and defensive scheme, and probably the first overall pick in the draft. Another 7-9 season might not get us any of those things. Other than affecting the morale of a bunch of players who (in many cases) need to be replaced anyway, what long-term advantage does 7-9 have over 1-15?

Um . . . which football team are you watching? The Bills have allowed the second most sacks of any team in the league. The only team which has allowed more--the Packers--has a QB who often holds the ball a long time, and thereby creates a lot of his own sacks. With Butler on IR, the Bills have no one at OT; and there will be plenty of times when a defender arrives at Edwards' blindside without having been touched. I'm not saying that Edwards isn't part of the problem. There's plenty of room for him to improve his own play, bad line or no. But this offensive line has extremely serious problems, beginning at the LT position. I hope to see those problems addressed early in the 2010 draft.

First, I agree that we need to be in the top 5. That said, the Bills have a lot of needs. LT is the most glaring. QB is probably a need, though it's hard to be certain without an offensive line. With TO on his way out the door after the year, we'll probably need a big, physical WR to play alongside Evans. (Unless Steve Johnson is capable of stepping up and filling that role.) TE is an uncertain position; though Nelson at least offers us the possibility of a solution. On defense, guys like Schobel and Kelsay are playing well--considerably better than we're used to seeing, in fact. But they're not getting any younger. Whether Maybin does or does not work out, we're still going to need more talent at DE over the next several years. More talent is also needed at DT. The LB corps is weak, with the exception of the oft-injured Poz. However, this team has a very solid secondary.

This is all too true. Since 1980, the Bills have had exactly two picks in the top 5. Bruce Smith (1st overall, 1985), and Mike Williams (4th overall, 2002). This team has suffered through enough mediocrity--especially since 2000--that we deserve more than just that! Let's pray that this team continues to experience losses like the one we just had to Cleveland. Because winning games like that would destroy any hope of getting a top 5/elite prospect.

When we played the Patriots, it looked like they stopped themselves a lot more often than we stopped them. Patriots' receivers dropped passes they'd normally catch. Tom Brady missed throws he'd normally make. Stuff like that. Then, at some point in the fourth quarter, the Patriots' offense got its act together. They stopped shooting themselves in the foot. At that point, that offense looked like an unstoppable juggernaut against our defense. You knew that, from that point on, every time the Patriots touched the ball, it would be a touchdown. As the other poster said, our defense is a plum waiting to be picked.

I assume you're hoping for a CB instead?

When you put a QB behind a joke OL, what other viable option does he have?

True. The usual sequence of events in those four games was as follows: Step 1: The offensive line would play like a complete and utter joke in the first half of the game. Trent would achieve little. Step 2: Somewhere in the third quarter, the offensive line would pick up steam. Trent would look better. Step 3: By the fourth quarter, the offensive line would flat-out dominate the other team. Trent would look like a hero in leading the fourth quarter comeback. We've seen much the same thing this season. In the game against the Patriots, the line looked great on run blocking, and decent in pass protection. Edwards had a very solid game. Since then, the quality of the line's play has declined: in fact it's looked more and more like a flaming train wreck. Edwards' play has declined in sync with that line's. If it sounds like I'm trying to blame everything on the line, I'm not. Bad line or no, Edwards has had legitimate opportunities to make plays, which he hasn't taken advantage of. That's clearly on him. It's bad enough that I'm entertaining very serious doubts about his viability as a long-term answer at QB. Different quarterbacks tend to respond to bad offensive line play differently. If you put a Drew Bledsoe or a Rob Johnson behind a good line, that QB will make your offense shine. But put either behind a bad line, and that QB will look like a disaster. On the other hand, a Kelly Holcomb can be effective behind a bad line--considerably more effective than Bledsoe or Johnson would have been. But put the three quarterbacks behind a good line, and Holcomb will look like the worst QB of the three. Like Bledsoe and Johnson before him, Edwards clearly needs good line play to look his best. He can't minimize the effects of bad line play, the way Holcomb once did. But when you give Edwards the advantages of good line play, can he exploit them as effectively as a Bledsoe or a Johnson would have? The answer to that question remains to be seen; but there have been some promising signs in that direction. Not that we've seen very many of those signs this year; as good line play has typically not been part of the Bills' equation.

Since 1980, the Bills have had exactly two picks in the top five of the draft. The first of those was Bruce Smith (1st overall, 1985). The second was Mike Williams (4th overall, 2002). Today's ugly loss to Cleveland really helped boost this team's stock in the upcoming draft. Not only did we lose to a team we could have beaten (always a positive from a draft perspective), but we stuck the Browns with a win. Which is a great thing, considering that the Browns are one of the teams we're likely to be competing against for draft position.

I disagree with your logic. If a guy has good physical traits but bad decision-making, he's neither low risk nor high reward. Not even if he throws a beautiful long bomb. We just finished sending exactly that same kind of QB to the UFL. Let's not make the same mistake twice.

Sometimes a team is better off in the long run if it has one or two 1-15 or 2-14 seasons. You often see a lot of elite, game changing players in the top 5 of the draft--especially first overall. I'd much rather this team go 1-15 than 6-10. Granted, I'd much rather have the Bills win the Super Bowl this year, but--and I know I'm going out on a limb here--I don't think that's overly likely to happen.

You could also make a case that the '88 draft was the best receiver draft ever. It had Hall of Fame level WRs like Michael Irvin and Tim Brown. Sterling Sharpe played at or near their level as well; but his career only lasted seven years because of that injury. Add to those guys like Anthony Miller (9,000 career receiving yards to Michael Irvin's 12,000), Flipper Anderson (5,000 career receiving yards), Brett Perriman (6500 career receiving yards), Quinn Early (6,500 career receiving yards), and you're looking at a very solid receiving class.

He'll probably have a few more of those before the UFL's defensive coordinators figure him out. After they do . . .

This isn't a terrible idea. As you point out, this team is not going to the playoffs this year, period. If we need a new QB--which right now does seem to be the case--then next season, our QB will likely be either a rookie or a second- or third-tier veteran. Either way, the odds of going to the playoffs next season seem slim. When you're in rebuilding mode, trading away your over-30 players for first round picks is generally a good instinct. Another factor to consider is that our coaching staff will likely be gone after the season. There's no way of knowing whether the new coaching staff will want to use the 3-4 or 4-3. (I think it's fairly obvious our current defensive scheme belongs in the scrap heap.) As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Stroud is not a 3-4 NT. Given this uncertainty, there's something to be said for the flexibility a first-round pick would offer us; as opposed to being locked into a strictly 4-3 type guy. There's a third benefit here; though it may not seem like one at first. Trading away Stroud would open a gaping hole on our defensive line for the rest of the season. Doing that could easily turn a 7-9 season into 5-11, or a 5-11 season into 3-13. If your goal for the coming off-season is to use a top-3 pick on a QB, and if you're writing off this season anyway, those two or three extra losses are actually a benefit. Ask Indianapolis fans whether it was worth sitting through a 1-15 season (or whatever it was) to be able to take Peyton Manning first overall. Ask Atlanta fans whether going through their painful season--and getting a third overall pick--was worth it, after that pick turned out to be Matt Ryan. Trading away Stroud could easily lead to a situation in which, this coming off-season, we have both a top-three pick and whatever first round pick we got for Stroud. Add those picks to the good draft we just finished having, and you're looking at a very solid foundation of young players.

My memory about the '07 season is a little vague. But as best I recall, the QB situation that year was a little like a game of musical chairs. The year began with Losman as the starter. Then he got hurt, and Edwards took his starting spot. Edwards played a while, got hurt. While Edwards was injured, Losman took his starting spot. Then Losman got hurt or was benched or something, allowing Edwards to take his starting spot. That year is a little hard to straighten out, because the coaches were often non-committal about who the starter actually was, or whether a particular QB was being held out due to injury or for performance reasons, etc. You could, perhaps, make the argument that losing one's starting spot due to injury + the replacement playing well is less potentially damaging to a player's confidence than losing one's starting spot due to an outright benching of a healthy player. But in 2007, there were enough injuries--to both Edwards and Losman--that benching a healthy, starting QB would have been something of a challenge. I'd also argue that the coaching staff was in an awkward situation in 2005. While Losman did well against Houston, his next three games were abysmal. Yes, sending him to the bench might have affected his confidence. But going out there and having still more abysmal performances could affect it also. Maybe it was felt that he needed a chance to take a step back, spend a few weeks becoming better-prepared, and then go back out there after he'd improved. That's sort of what ended up happening. His second stint at QB in 2005 proved more successful than his first. It still wasn't particularly good play, but at least it was better play than we'd seen from him before.

Kordell Stewart also had a good season. Losman's good year came because the team radically simplified the offense, and relied on a lot of long bombs to Evans. Which worked well for a while. But teams learned that when you play Losman, you double cover Evans to take away the long bomb, and you dare him to beat you with the underneath stuff. When a defense does that, Losman will still make a play here and there. But, over the course of the game, the offense will fizzle and be unproductive. As far as Edwards being "handled differently"--Losman was allowed to stay on the bench for his entire rookie year. (With the exception of just three plays.) Edwards got thrown into the fire his rookie year. During Losman's first year as a starter, he got pulled in and out of the starting lineup. Ditto for Edwards in his first year as starter. How, specifically, do you feel the coaching staff has treated the two quarterbacks differently?

You've made a solid point in this thread. Specifically, how can we know that Edwards is being poorly coached? As far as I know, the QB coach position is empty--which would seem to indicate that Edwards' position coach has a little room for improvement. It stands to reason that Turk Schonert did a poor job in his position last year, considering that he was fired before the season opener this year. What about Alex van Pelt? In the first two games, van Pelt's game plans matched up very well against the Bills' opponents. But the last two weeks, the Bills' opponents have gotten the better of those chess matches. Until we have more data, it will be difficult to determine van Pelt's worth as an offensive coordinator. (It's also a little hard to evaluate him when the Bills--especially at tackle--are so clearly overmatched by their opponents.) In a nutshell, what I'm suggesting here is that we look for evidence of good or bad coaching in general; with the realization that a bad coaching staff is unlikely to do a particularly good job coaching Trent. Even if, as I suspect, the coaching is bad, that does not let Trent off the hook. Regardless of the problems around him, he should still be throwing the ball with a lot more accuracy than we've seen over the last two weeks.

Unfortunately, the parallels aren't exact. While Bill Belichick didn't have the world's best head coaching tenure in Cleveland--especially in that final year--no one can question the job he did as defensive coordinator. That means that he had two things to offer any team of which he'd be the head coach: 1) A deep understanding of X's and O's, especially on defense. 2) A lot of brainpower. This translates into a higher potential to learn from his past mistakes; and to see football related topics more clearly, and think about them more deeply, than others in the NFL might. I've seen the argument made, and a lot of supporting evidence given, that Jauron was nothing more than an average defensive coordinator (if even that). He's not going to bring superior coaching to the Bills, even on defense. And, Ivy League degree or no, he's not going to outsmart his opponents the way Bill Belichick does. Another difference between the two teams is that the 2001 Patriots had Tom Brady.