Orton's Arm

My vote is for the 1984 49ers. That team went 15-1 in the regular season. Its one loss was by three points. It won its NFC playoff games by a combined score of 44-10. It went on to defeat Dan Marino and the Dolphins in the Super Bowl, 38-16. The high powered offense had five Pro Bowlers, including three offensive linemen. The defense led the league in fewest points allowed (227). What about the '85 Bears? It could be pointed out that their defense allowed just 184 points; as compared to the 227 points allowed by the 49ers defense the previous year. (That's 18% fewer points.) Both defenses were very good, but the Bears' defense was obviously better. But was it better by enough to make up for the fact that the '84 49ers had the better offense? I don't think it was. An argument could also be made for the '89 49ers. Their regular season stats were worse than their '84 counterparts (a 14-2 record, a little less scoring over the course of the regular season, etc.). But that team came alive in the postseason, winning its NFC playoff games by a combined score of 71-16, and defeating the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl by a score of 55-10.

Cliff Notes version: I expect the game to be a shoot-out. A firefight! Much like this.

Oops. Meant our win over Tampa. I need to get more sleep.

Welcome to the boards! On defense, the Bills have been good at stopping the run, and pretty good at stopping the big play. On the other hand, the defensive backs often play soft, and the pass rush has been hit and miss. A "death by a thousand small cuts"-style passing attack is generally quite effective against the Bills' style of defense. The Bills' defense cannot get off the field on third down! Sometimes this defense will cause offenses to bog down after they've put together a long, sustained drive. So you might see some field goal attempts where you'd been hoping for touchdowns. You could easily see a few big defensive plays over the course of the game. But overall, expect to see your team's offense to get plenty of time of possession, and to move the chains an awful lot. On the other side of the ball, the Bills have a young, athletic, highly mobile offensive line that's quite good at run blocking. The interior of the line is also solid in pass protection. The tackles are a little more iffy in that department; so if you have good DEs then Edwards won't have all day to throw. The LT--Bell--is a first-time starter, and didn't play football on any level before 2005. He's learning on the job, and had a better game in his second week than in his first. The QB--Edwards--is off to a good start this year, and has the fourth-highest passer rating in the NFL. That will probably go down as he faces some better defenses, but for right now he's looking pretty good. Of immense help has been having the newly installed Alex van Pelt as his offensive coordinator. That's a ridiculously big upgrade over the bum of a coordinator we had there last season. Terrell Owens is one of the Bills' receivers. I'm sure you've heard plenty about him already. He's a big-time player who typically commands double teams; thereby opening up other receivers and the Bills' running game. His actual production this season has been below his usual standards, but his effect on the overall game goes beyond just his own production. He drops more passes than he should though. At the other outside receiver position there's Lee Evans. Evans is the kind of guy who can and will burn a DB with his raw speed if he's left in one-on-one coverage. Unfortunately, Evans is short (only about 5-10), so it's not like you can have him compete for jump balls the way a Randy Moss would. A better comparison player would be Steve Smith of the Carolina Panthers, except that Steve Smith is a much more three-dimensional WR, and significantly better player, than is Lee Evans. It would, however, be an exaggeration to say that Evans is good at only the long bomb. At slot WR the Bills have Josh Reed. Another smurf receiver, Reed runs good routes, has good hands, and has been a solid, reliable part of the offense for the last few years. He's not as fast a receiver as one would like, however. At TE, the Bills have had some injuries; so expect to see rookie fourth round pick Nelson get more playing time. Nelson is fast, and is the most dangerous receiving threat the Bills have at the TE position. He's improving as a blocker. In addition to Nelson, the Bills have several decent but unspectacular TEs who can serve as safety valves, move the chains, and keep drives alive. Due to the suspension of Marshawn Lynch, the Bills' starting RB is currently Fred Jackson. Jackson is a very shifty, elusive, instinctive RB; whose nimbleness makes him difficult to bring down. He's also a good receiving threat out of the backfield; and is particularly dangerous after the catch. Expect to see him pile up 150 - 200 all-purpose yards. The Bills' offense is dangerous. If you put seven men in the box, Jackson will punish you for it. A lot. In fact, between him and the first-rate run-blocking of the offensive line, the Bills' running game has been successful even when teams have put eight men in the box. But if you put eight men in the box, then that leaves your defense open to a big play from someone like Evans or Owens. Add to that Alex van Pelt's penchant for getting the absolute most possible out of the offensive talent he's been given, and the Saints defense is going to be in for a long afternoon. (As, obviously, will also be the case for the Bills' defense.) If ever a game looked like it was going to be a shoot-out, this game would be it. In past years, the Bills have used dominant special teams play to partially mask their inadequacies on offense and defense. This season the special teams unit seems to have taken a step backward. It still looks solid, but it no longer looks outstanding. McKelvin had two fumbles against the Patriots on kickoff returns. One of those fumbles was recovered by the Patriots; directly leading to the Bills' loss.

I noticed he actually moved the Bills down a couple spots after their win over Jacksonville. I know that Jacksonville isn't the world's best team, but come on! It wasn't like we won that game on some last second fluke. The offensive line looked fairly competent in pass protection and good on run blocking, Fred Jackson looked amazing, Trent Edwards is the fourth-rated QB in the NFL over the first two weeks of the season. I know that last stat is likely to slip a little as he faces some better defenses, but still. Alex van Pelt is clearly worlds better than the man he replaced. The defense did a decent job of pass coverage, and a strong job at stopping the run. Moving the Bills down?!?!

You'll recall that, a few years ago, the A-Train was keeping Fred Jackson on the bench. It was only after the A-Train went down with an injury that Jackson was given the chance to prove himself in a regular season game. I don't claim to know whether Steve Johnson will be the next Fred Jackson story. But when I see a guy who's shown flashes (Jackson a few years ago, Johnson more recently) and dead wood in front of the player in question (the A-Train and Parrish, respectively), my instinct is to get rid of the dead wood.

The difference between last year and this year is this: Last year, none of Edwards' good games came against the Patriots. Even though the Bills lost the season opener against the Patriots this year, Edwards still looked like a real NFL quarterback out there. Yes, he could have improved his play at the margin, but bottom line he played well enough to give his team a very solid chance to win. You wrote that you'll temper your excitement until Edwards wins a couple of division games. Since when did winning football games become the responsibility of one particular guy? The last time I checked, football was a team sport. Take Joe Montana, for example. He's known for that late-game touchdown drive against the Bengals, and rightly so. But as Montana himself pointed out, it wasn't him personally taking control of that football game. It was the 49ers' entire offense. The offensive line blocked well. The receivers ran good routes. Montana added that if John Taylor had dropped that TD pass, Super Bowl history would have looked a lot different. Scoring that last TD required a good effort from a lot of guys, not just one. The only reason the 49ers offense was able to take the field for that last drive was because its defense had just forced a three and out. Let's say that the Bills win a game against a divisional opponent, but Edwards plays poorly. Would that game boost your confidence in him? No? Then why, after he played well in a divisional loss, wouldn't you feel more confidence in him? Should Edwards have somehow stopped McKelvin from fumbling? Or should he have caused the defense to stop the Patriots from scoring two TDs in the last five minutes? Why does a loss prevent you from giving out credit for good individual efforts, when that credit is clearly deserved?

No.

Improving time of possession needs to start with the defense learning how to get off the field on third down. They allowed the Patriots to convert about 2/3 of their third downs, which is way above what defenses usually allow. I'll grant that the Patriots offense is one of the best in the league. But the defense's inability to get off the field on third downs isn't just something that started happening this past Monday. One of the things I liked about the Wade Phillips 3-4 is that it seemed at least as good at preventing the big play as is our Tampa-2, and yet the defense was a lot more likely to deny other teams third down conversions.

If other teams' DBs played as soft/far away from the guys they're covering as ours often do, Edwards' stats would look a lot better.

You know, I couldn't help but think the same thing.

The first round pick/first contract-and-out merry-go-round has served this team so well, for so many years. Why abandon it now? You may be tempted to point out that a) it's been well over ten years since the Bills' last playoff win, and b) that Nate Odomes left the team at about the same time; thereby inaugurating the CB merry-go-round. You might want to use these data to draw into question my conclusion that the CB merry-go-round has, in fact, served us well. But you'd be wrong. And the reason you'd be wrong is . . . um . . . okay, I can't think of that reason right now. But you have to admit that extending starting CBs beyond their first contracts is relatively new ground for this team, at least in the era of free agency. Newness and uncertainty often go together. You may try to rebut that by pointing out that, with this contract extension, we seem to be heading into the uncharted waters of actually having a competent front office! I'd tend to agree with that. But what then? We know exactly what to expect from an incompetent front office. For Bills' fans--especially for those who've started following the team since 1999 or so--a competent front office is something new, utterly alien. Now that the front office has its act together, there's no telling how it might act! I'm sure this has got to have a lot of Bills fans nervous, or at least, very, very confused.

Trent made a nice play to get Owens the ball and a 20 yard gain. Things were looking good! But then the offensive line allowed a sack. There was almost no time between when the ball was snapped and when the sack occurred. It's a lot easier for a quarterback to look good when he can count on his line to protect him in crucial situations. On that play, Edwards couldn't. I agree that Trent isn't in the franchise QB category; and that you'll see guys like Tom Brady do things Trent doesn't do. But I think that if we'd had Brady back there instead of Trent on that play, it still would have been a sack.

Good point about the 500 yards surrendered. Another thing to take into account is that, at least in the first half, New England's offense was having an off day. There were a lot of dropped passes, or throws that were a little off. A lot of drives stalled because of New England messing up; and not because of good defensive plays we'd made. Imagine how much worse the yardage and time of possession stats would look if New England's offense had been as good the whole game as it had been late in the second half!

Very solid post! I tend to see Edwards in a more favorable light than you do. That said, I can easily see why you came away from the second half of last season with concerns about his play. I was starting to get a little worried myself! But he put a lot of those concerns to rest with that New England game. He didn't play perfectly, but he looked like a guy who could get the job done.

Good point about Edwards' stats. IIRC, he had some throws in the 20 - 25 yard range which would have been completions, had the receivers not dropped the ball. Overall, a very solid day for him!

I heard Marv say that the loss of Poz for any length of time would be devastating. I don't know about anyone else, but I've seen a slight improvement in his play now that he's recovered from his injury. It was very subtle, and something that might slip past you unless you were paying close attention. As I happened to be, on the play you've mentioned. I noticed him on the field. The Patriots were in a third and goal situation, and decided to pass the ball. Whitner was out of position on that pass play, but the Patriots failed to capitalize due to uncharacteristically poor execution. After the pass fell incomplete, Whitner distinguished himself by cheering emphatically. I care! Marv expressed concerns about McKelvin's tackling and his ball protection on special teams plays. I agree with you that thus far, he hasn't lived up to his draft status. But in fairness to the front office, McKelvin was expected to be off the boards before the Bills picked; so it's not like he was a Donte Whitner style reach. I don't claim to have the same level of insight into offensive line play that you do. But that said, I too was deeply unhappy with Bell's level of play. Unless he improves dramatically, LT will be the Bills' number one need this coming offseason. No question there. I'd had some concerns about Trent, based on the second half of last season. Last night, he put a lot of those concerns to rest. I have to say that even though the Bills lost in a heartbreaker, they played a lot better than I'd expected. There are still serious problems that need to be corrected (dropped passes, our LT situation, etc.) but a lot of the young guys came out and had very solid games! Wood, Levitre, Nelson, Edwards, etc. I think that we won't see the true effect of those positives until next year, when some of our current holes have been filled.

Trent Edwards had two TDs to go with his zero interceptions, and averaged 8.4 yards per pass attempt. Against a Belichick-coached defense. In Foxboro. And you've listed him as one of the four reasons why we lost?!?! If Trent Edwards was to walk on water, some of the people on these boards would claim that he should have chosen a different body of water on which to walk, that he should have walked faster or more slowly, that he should have worn different clothing while walking on the water, and that his comments about the experience should have been more memorable and confident-sounding. After that, they'd criticize his haircut, his facial expressions . . .

I suppose they could always rewrite the rules for football. If a team scores a TD in the first quarter, the refs could say, "Well, that's not overly impressive. The teams are still getting warmed up, so let's only count that TD as 3 points." If a team scores a TD in the fourth quarter, the refs could say, "Man! That team got it done in crunch time. That TD is worth a good 10 points, easy. And we'll award 14 points for any TD scored in the final two minutes." However, under the rules set presently in place, a TD scored in the first quarter has just as much of an effect on the final score as a TD scored late in the fourth. Put another way, a team like the Patriots will only give you so many opportunities to score points over the course of a game. You need to take advantage of as many of those opportunities as possible--regardless of when they occur--to maximize your odds of coming away with a win. TO's dropped pass cost the Bills one of those opportunities. I don't think that the dropped pass hurt the Bills as much as the fumble did. But it was still painful.

I pretty much agree with that. One play stands out in my mind. Bell got cleanly beaten by the guy he was supposed to be blocking. As the guy rushed passed him, Bell committed a holding penalty. But even that wasn't enough to prevent the defender from arriving at Trent almost instantly. The Patriots declined the penalty, because the defender's almost instant arrival in the backfield blew up the play. Problems like that are to be expected from a second year player and first-time starter, playing the most demanding position on the line. Missing so much time in preseason due to injury didn't help. And, if memory serves, Bell doesn't have nearly the same amount of pre-NFL football experience as most other guys in the league. So you'd expect some problems early on, regardless of how good a player he might become once he catches on. Your assessment is dead-on accurate: Bell wasn't ready to be an NFL starter tonight. He made some very bad plays, especially in pass protection. I don't have a solid feeling one way or the other about how his career is likely to turn out.

This isn't the way the NFL works. It's not like the Bills, or any other team for that matter, are typically going to be willing to renegotiate a player's contract every year. Normally a player has to wait several years between one contract negotiation and the next. (Unless he's a journeyman drifting from team to team.) Bell is a seventh round draft pick, which probably means he signed a (four?) year contract prior to the beginning of last season. If he plays well this season and the next, he should be in an excellent position to negotiate an extension. If the Bills refuse to negotiate seriously, he plays out the last year of his contract and hits the free agent market. If, on the other hand, he demands an extension, the Bills are likely to respond in one of two ways. 1) Ignore him, on the theory that giving into his unreasonable demands would set a bad precedent. I consider this response the most likely. 2) Make him agree to a contract extension in exchange for the added pay. The bigger the size of the pay raise, the more years the Bills would add to his contract. Even assuming Bell gets lucky, and the Bills go with option 2, he's still going to be negotiating from a position of comparative weakness. Bell hasn't yet played a down in the NFL, and he was taken in the seventh round of last year's draft. Until he proves something on the NFL level, the Bills can't know whether he's a long-term answer or a one year fill-in. In the very unlikely event they offered him a pay raise at all, the terms of that offer would reflect his unproven status. So he should spend the next two years proving himself, and then obtain an offer that reflects what he's achieved.

I completely agree. Predicting anything more than three wins would be absurd.

Fixed!

Me!!! The neglect of the OL has lasted considerably longer than a decade. It began with the 1993 draft, John Butler's first as GM. Under Butler, responsible for the drafts from 1993 - 2000, the Bills used just one first round pick on an offensive lineman, and no picks in the second round. Under TD (responsible for the drafts from 2001 - 2005), the Bills used just one first round pick, and no second round picks, on the OL. Under Marv (drafts 2006 & 2007) the Bills didn't use any picks in the first or second rounds on the OL. Nor did they do so in the 2008 draft, Russ Brandon's first as GM (or whatever title he has). By my count, that's a sixteen year stretch during which the OL was grossly neglected, at the direct expense of every Bills QB unfortunate enough to line up under center. Happily, that stretch of neglect seems to have been broken by the Wood/Levitre picks. I use the word "seems," because there's no guarantee that the front office won't go right back to neglecting the OL for another five or ten years or so.

Both Rhodes and Walker were overpaid. Getting rid of their high salaries will, hopefully, free up enough money to extend guys like McGee. But if not, I'm sure the Bills could find one or two other overpaid, expendable players to get rid of, if they look hard enough. I agree with your statement that Levy as GM wasn't that great an idea. Let's look at the long-term answers (or potential answers) that were brought in under his tenure: OL: Brad Butler QB: Trent Edwards WR: nobody TE: nobody RB: Lynch, Jackson DT: Stroud, Williams, Johnson DE: nobody LB: Poz CB: nobody S: Whitner So that's a total of nine guys. But Kyle Williams and Spencer Johnson are arguably quality backups rather than starter-caliber players. So that leaves you with seven. And Fred Jackson is a backup as well, leaving you with just six starters. Of those six, one (Trent Edwards) has a lot of questions he needs to answer before he's considered a bona fide starting quality QB; leaving you with five. Of those five, Brad Butler is an okay player, but nothing special. Marcus Stroud is good, but he was already getting on in years when we'd traded for him. The age factor makes it a little more difficult to classify him as a long term solution, when he might not be around for the long term. So that leaves just three guys. Of those three, Whitner clearly hasn't lived up to his draft status, and some might make the same argument regarding Lynch and Poz. If the only way Marv can find solid, long-term solutions to positions is to use first round picks (or a very early second round pick in Poz's case), and if few or none of Marv's early picks live up to the expectations associated with their draft status, then you have to wonder about his ability to be a good GM. I guess you could argue that he made up for that with his, um, excellent coaching hires? Oh, wait, never mind!