Orton's Arm

You've raised good points about why this year's preseason is important. On the other hand, I've always liked the preseason. It's a chance to give playing time to guys who normally wouldn't get it. Sometimes, you end up discovering a player you might have overlooked. Fred Jackson performed very well in the preseason before becoming a key contributor during the regular season. Trent Edwards is another guy who performed quite well during the preseason, before unseating Losman as the starter. Steve Johnson has done well in the preseason, and will (hopefully) turn that into a solid performance in the regular season. I think the preseason gets a bad rap because they charge too much for tickets, and because they sometimes attempt to ram preseason tickets down people's throats. If tickets were more appropriately priced, people could accept the preseason for what it is: a glorified practice session or scrimmage opportunity; geared towards showcasing backup players.

I think the UFL might be a good fit for Losman. He has all the money he'll ever need; and from a self-image perspective, he's better off being a successful UFL quarterback than an unsuccessful NFL quarterback. Indeed, the latter option may now be closed to him, even in a backup capacity. But if he proves to be a valuable part of some UFL team, and is accepted by his new teammates, he'll probably end up feeling a lot better about things than is currently the case.

I agree with your implication that the Bills would be better off with Carolina's first round pick in the 2010 draft, than they are with Byrd. That said, I think that Jauron knows his job may be on the line this season; and would have been loath to trade away present benefit for a future benefit he might not be around to see. (Jauron's influence in the war room may have waned, but the Byrd pick has his fingerprints all over it.) Your point about Whitner is depressing, because I do not want to see this team blow another top 10 pick on a strong safety any time soon! That said, I hope he has at least six good seasons ahead of him (which would imply a ten year career). Since Levy became GM, the Bills have had four picks in the top 15. Of those picks, two were used on DBs (Whitner and McKelvin), one on a RB (Lynch), and one on a DE (Maybin). This is unfortunate--one would have hoped for a stronger emphasis on the lines.

In eleven drafts with the Colts, Polian has used one first round pick on a CB. (The 29th overall selection on Marlin Jackson.) In seven years with the Bills, Polian used one first round pick on a CB--the 16th overall pick on James Williams. Polian almost certainly considers CB--especially the #1 CB--to be a very important position. But not necessarily a top 5 position. I know this is getting off the subject of Polian a bit, but if I had to name the top five positions, they'd be: 1. QB 2. LT 3. RDE 4. NT (especially in a 3-4) 5. A toss-up between RT, WR, and DT (in a 4-3). Arguably RB, especially if you're looking at an all-purpose back in the Thurman Thomas mold.

I have to agree with everything you've written, Bill. Mind you, I still think that extending McGee would be a good idea regardless of whether the Levy/Jauron mentality is ended. It's typically a mistake to let your better players leave via free agency, even if they play less critical positions. But, that said, the main reason I'd love to see McGee extended is that it would protect us from having a first round pick used on a CB, at least for the next few years. Once McKelvin goes first contract and out, however . . .

The first move I'd make is to sign Terrence McGee to an extension. Between him and McKelvin, the starting CB spots would be filled for many years to come. That would free the Bills to focus on other positions in the 2010 draft.

Yes, but Johnson was a significantly better QB, overall, than Losman. That isn't to say that Losman might not be able to hang around for a few years himself--he still might--just that it's not a given.

Very solid post! I agree completely with your points about the importance of a good head coach and a good quarterback. I'd say that the three most important areas for a team to be solid are at quarterback, offensive line, and defensive line. Without a quarterback, you're not going to have much of a passing game; and your offense will be one-dimensional. Add to that the fact that a bad quarterback will turn the ball over a lot; whereas a good quarterback can be instrumental in snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. A good offensive line is critical. You have to have at least decent protection for your passing game to work. And it's very tough for a running game to produce much of anything, unless the run blocking is solid. If you have a good defensive line, you can get a good pass rush from your front four. Without it, you're more or less forced to blitz if you want any kind of pressure. On running downs, a good defensive line can either make the tackle itself, or at very least disrupt things while using up a lot of blockers. As you noted, the Bills haven't had a good quarterback since Kelly hung up his cleats. Hopefully Edwards will change this. The offensive line has had some successes here and there, but for the most part has been underwhelming ever since we lost the Kent Hull/Jim Ritcher group. The defensive line was good in the '90s with guys like Bruce Smith, Ted Washington, and Pat Williams; but it's gone downhill since then. Why have the Bills endured such long periods of weakness at such key positions, for such long periods of time? Probably the biggest single reason is this team's failure to build through the draft. Of the first round picks we had from 2001 - 2005, only one (Lee Evans) was used on a player who's still with the team. The Colts have four such players: Reggie Wayne, Dwight Freeney, Dallas Clark, and Marlin Jackson. The next obvious question is, why have the Bills failed so spectacularly where the Colts have succeeded? Look at their first round picks from that era: 2001: Nate Clements. Short-sightedness. 2002: Mike Williams. Bad talent evaulation. 2003a: Drew Bledsoe. Short-sightedness. 2003b: Willis McGahee. Short-sightedness. 2004a: Lee Evans. A good pick. 2004b. J.P. Losman. Bad talent evaluation. As is generally the case with Bills' CBs picked in the first round, Clements went first contract and out. (After allowing for the extra year we got due to the franchise tag.) Willis McGahee was a short-sighted pick, because running backs typically have short careers; and because the Bills had a lot of other holes that needed to be filled. By the time we filled them, it would likely be time for another running back! The problem with the Drew Bledsoe pick is that a 3-13 team (as we had been in 2001) should not trade away a first round pick for someone else's aging veteran. Several of the picks expended on "shortsightedness" players could have been used on present-day contributors, instead, had the Bills been run by a better GM. When TD was guilty of bad talent evaluation--as he had been in the case of Mike Williams and Losman--it was typically because he'd over-emphasized physical traits, while under-emphasizing everything else. Both players had extensive physical potential. But Williams lacked the passion and work ethic he needed; while Losman lacked the on-field awareness and intelligence you'd hope your quarterback would have. To what extent is Russ Brandon guilty of TD's sins? He's already used an early first round pick on a CB (McKelvin), while letting a perfectly good CB walk in the prime of his career (Jabari Greer). Hopefully, that short-sightedness represents an anomaly, not a pattern. I'm not aware of any cases in which he's allowed the physical gifts of an early draft pick to blind him to that pick's other flaws. There don't seem to be any Mike Williams or J.P. Losman stories under Brandon's tenure as GM analog--at least not thus far.

My thoughts were somewhat similar to yours. My first choice for 1-16 was Heyward-Bey, for the reasons you mentioned. My second was Sanchez; whom I have a bad feeling about. For 17 - 32, I voted for Robert Ayers. The low sack total didn't impress me. Neither did his highlight reel. I mean, those are supposed to be the guy's best plays over his college career. I didn't see enough there to warrant first round status.

1. No. 2. It's par for the course with high draft picks--especially QBs. 3. No, not this season. 4. At the end of the season, I expect the division to look like this: 1) Patriots*, 2) Dolphins, 3) Jets, 4) Bills.

With Owens and Evans on the outside, you almost have to put Josh Reed in the slot. But as I see it, the #4 WR position is wide open, so to speak. A big target with very good hands, such as Johnson, would make a good outlet receiver--a guy to whom Trent can turn if he's in trouble and things are breaking down. I'll grant that Johnson doesn't present the speed/danger element of a Parrish, but sometimes it's more important to move the chains than it is to threaten the other team with a fast smurf receiver with questionable hands.

The Peters example is not exactly parallel to the CBs who've gone first contract and out. Peters had a great year in 2007; but followed it up by a far less inspiring year in 2008 (especially in pass protection). If he plays up to the best of his ability, there's no question that he'll be one of the elite LTs of the league. The big question mark with him, of course, is motivation. If you could somehow take that question mark away, there'd be no question that the Bills got ripped off in their trade with Philly. But as long as that question mark remains, it drives down the fair value for Peters in any kind of trade. Given that factor, the first round pick the Bills received for him seems . . . close to being fair. Compare the first round pick from Peters to the compensation they've received for losing their first round CBs; which is nothing. (Well, except for whichever compensatory draft picks they may have received for losing those players.) You argue that, when the Bills get a good player at any given position, he's likely to go first contract and out. But the team's past history does not support this argument. From 1990 - 2005, the Bills' most successful draft picks have been as follows: Offensive Line John Fina - ten years with the Bills, one with the Cardinals Ruben Brown - nine years with the Bills, four with the Bears Jonas Jennings - four years in Buffalo, four years (and counting) in San Francisco. He has less than a season and a half worth of starts in his four years with the 49ers. WR Eric Moulds - ten years with the Bills, two with other teams Josh Reed - seven years (and counting) with the Bills Lee Evans - five years with the Bills, locked up for a long time to come. TE Jay Riemersma - seven years with the Bills, two with the Steelers. He had only nine starts after leaving Buffalo. QB - no draft day success stories from 1990 - 2005 RB Antowain Smith - four years in Buffalo, five years (including two with 8 or more starts) with other teams. Travis Henry - four years with the Bills, out of a seven year career. Willis McGahee - four years with the Bills, two years (and counting) with the Ravens DL Phil Hansen - eleven years with the Bills John Parella- one year with the Bills, eleven with other teams Marcellus Wiley - four years with the Bills, six with other teams. But--after his second year in San Diego--he never had more than three sacks in a season. Aaron Schobel - eight years (and counting) with the Bills LB Mark Maddox - seven years with the Bills, three with the Cardinals Sam Rogers - seven years with the Bills, three with other teams John Holocek - six years with the Bills, two with other teams. He only had 11 starts after he left Buffalo. Sam Cowart - four years in Buffalo, four with other teams. Angelo Crowell - six years with the Bills, entering his first year with the Bucs. Safety Henry Jones - ten years with the Bills, two with other teams CB Thomas Smith - out of a nine year career, he spent seven with the Bills Jeff Burris - four years with the Bills, six with other teams Antoine Winfield - five years with the Bills, five years (and counting) with the Vikings. Nate Clements - six years with the Bills, two years (and counting) with the 49ers. Terrence McGee - entering his seventh year with the Bills. His contract is set to expire at the end of the season. As you can see from the above list, the Bills' success stories at the non-CB positions generally spent the bulk of their useful careers in Buffalo. When a non-CB was let go in the prime of his career, there was generally some factor involved other than just money. With Cowart, it was the injury. With Crowell, it was the injury plus the front office's dissatisfaction with how Crowell handled it. The one position (other than CB) where the Bills demonstrated the most short-sightedness was at RB. In that case, they used three first round picks on players who, collectively, gave the team twelve years of play. They also received a total of three third round picks from trading away those guys which, though not much, is better than nothing. Among non-CBs/RBs, the closest the Bills came to a first contract and out situation was Marcellus Wiley. Given that he had two very good years for San Diego before becoming a shell of his former self, it's difficult to believe that TD somehow knew that Wiley wouldn't work out well over the long term. Based on what TD knew at the time, the decision to let Wiley walk may have been the result of some combination of TD's short-sightedness, and the constraints imposed by the mess Butler made of the salary cap. Jonas Jennings is another potential example of a successful non-CB/RB who went first contract and out. But given that he's missed most of his potential starts in San Francisco due to injury, this appears to be a case in which the Bills received most of the value from Jennings' career. Based on the above, there are very few clear examples of the Bills allowing a non-CB/RB to go first contract and out, halfway through a long and solid career. On the other hand, there are a number of examples of good non-CBs/RBs being retained through the bulk of their useful careers. Eric Moulds. Lee Evans. Aaron Schobel. Phil Hansen. Ruben Brown. To a lesser degree, John Fina, Jay Riemersma, and Henry Jones. Compare that to CBs and RBs. Other than Thomas Smith (who spent seven years with the Bills), none of our success stories at CB have spent more than six years with the team. Jabari Greer--an UDFA--left after five years. There are no Lee Evans or Eric Moulds stories among the Bills' CBs; no guys who will spend the vast bulk of their long, useful careers with the Bills. One could say the same thing about the RBs drafted during that time, though Lynch might become an exception to that rule. Given that CBs (due to contract status) and RBs (due to longevity issues) tend to have the shortest stays in Buffalo, the number of first round picks used on the RB/CB positions serves as a potential indication of the front office's short-sightedness. During the '80s--when the Bills were building up to Super Bowl contender status--the team used four first round picks on RBs/DBs. By 1990, none of those four players was on the roster; and none had given the team more than five years of play. However, the Bills had enough success with other players drafted in the '80s to make up for this. During the '90s, the Bills used five first round picks on RBs/CBs. With the exception of Thomas Smith, none of those players gave the team more than five years of play. During the 2000s, the Bills have--thus far--used four first round picks on RBs/CBs. Of the two RBs/CBs taken before 2005, neither is still with the team.

Winfield is far more than the "decent' player you described him as. He's top-notch in coverage, and one of the best tackling CBs you'll ever see. He has stone hands, but you can't have everything. As for Winfield and Clements not being worth what they were paid--you may or may not be right. But, either way, the fact remains that the Bills do not extend their CB success stories to second contracts. Such players are allowed to hit free agency, and then they leave. Knowing that that's what will happen when a Bills CB turns out to be very successful, it's a mistake to use first round picks on the position. Rather than expending still more first round picks on that hamster wheel, the Bills should use their early picks to build a core of very good players, whom they hope to retain for the bulk of their useful careers. Without that core, the odds of winning a Super Bowl are practically nil.

That's a rock-solid post. As I've written here, the Bills (from 1990 - 2005) experienced about nine success stories with their first round picks. The five non-CBs among those success stories were John Fina, Ruben Brown, Eric Moulds, Lee Evans, and Henry Jones. Each of those players was retained for the bulk of his useful career. The four CB success stories were Thomas Smith, Jeff Burris, Antoine Winfield, and Nate Clements. Other than Smith (who stayed seven years, and was the least successful of the four), none of those guys stayed more than six years. The average for the group was to stick around for 5.5 years before leaving for greener pastures. And, as you point out, that's a terrible waste of our first round draft picks. Good teams don't act that way. Take the Colts, for example, during the Bill Polian era. Not every first round pick they've had has been a success story. But, when they have been successful, they've retained that player for the bulk of his useful career. The one exception was Marshall Faulk. But even in his case, they at least got something (a second and a fifth) for trading him away. Compare Polian's discipline--using first round picks as long-term building blocks--with the short-sightedness of the Bills' front office (using first round picks on quick fix CBs, who consistently go first contract and out).

I agree with most of your post, but strongly disagree with the part relating to Winfield. The Bills used a first round pick on him. He worked out very well. Instead of re-signing him, they let him walk in free agency. Then used a first round pick on his replacement, whom they also let walk after his first contract. There's no excuse for any of that. The fact that Antoine Winfield wants to maximize his salary does not make him any more mercenary than most other NFL players.

You may be right about what pulling JP did for his confidence. On the other hand, Losman played very badly in games 2 - 4; and that was in his second year in that offense. I've seen it argued that, during those four games, it was already starting to become clear that Losman would be a bust. Frankly, I don't think there's much Mularkey could have done to have avoided that outcome for JP. Not that he handled the situation well, but it probably didn't matter. In defense of my statement that the 2005 Bills lacked a foundation upon which a playoff team could be built . . . consider that some of the key players from the 2004 Bills were lost due to free agency, or released. Jonas Jennings comes to mind. As does Ross Tucker. TD finally found a solution to the open wound of the RG position, and released him in the offseason. Losing those two guys was a big part of the reason why the offensive line had an unexpected flirtation with decency in 2004, but was a complete train wreck in 2005. We also lost Bledsoe after 2004. That's not as big a deal to me as it is to some. In my view, Holcomb provided a somewhat better year of quarterbacking in 2005 than Bledsoe had in 2004. The success of the 2004 Bills was largely keyed by its defense. A lot of aging defenders who played well in 2004 hit the wall during the 2005 season, and were released or traded for peanuts after the 2005 season was over. Very little of the talent that led the Bills to their 2004 flirtation with the playoffs was still with us come 2006. The 7-9 season of 2006 was largely due to a lot of new faces. I don't remember the percentage of the roster Marv replaced in his first year, but I recall it was quite high. We had a lot of rookies playing that year, plus second or third rate free agents such as Melvin Fowler, Tutan Reyes, Robert Royal, Peerless Price, etc. Marv and Jauron achieved 7-9 not because they'd built upon 2004, but because they'd largely started from scratch. But, in too many cases, they started from scratch with substandard materials.

Playoffs? Playoffs! Don't talk to me about the playoffs. The Buffalo Bills of 2005 were . They went 5-11, largely because they didn't have any offensive linemen (except Jason Peters), they didn't have a quarterback (except an aging Kelly Holcomb), and didn't have anyone at DT. In fact, the defense was keyed by aging veterans such as Lawyer Milloy, Troy Vincent, and London Fletcher. As sad as it sounds, guys like those represented the core of the team (such as it was). Not only was that 5-11 team very far from the playoffs, but--other than a Lee Evans here or a Josh Reed there--it lacked a foundation upon which a playoff team could be built. I agree with a lot of the other points you raised in your post though.

In 2007, the offensive line often pass protected well, but did a lousy job at run blocking. I felt the line took a major step backward in 2008. One of the most obvious examples was Peters; who was mediocre at pass protection in 2008, but good (and sometimes dominant) at run blocking. In 2007, he'd been very good or dominant in both areas. Derrick Dockery underachieved in 2008. Losing Brad Butler to injury for a few games didn't do us any favors. In some of the games the Bills had early in the 2008 season, the offensive line did literally nothing for the first half or three quarters. No pass protection, no run blocking. Then somewhere in the middle of the third quarter, the line would come alive, and look dominant for the last 20 minutes of the game. Edwards would use the good pass protection to lead a dramatic comeback against some team the Bills should have dominated to begin with. Unfortunately, those moments of ineptness didn't go away as the season went on. Later in the season, the line would go for very long stretches--sometimes even whole games--in which it achieved next to nothing. Then the next week it might have a game in which it looked pretty good. Of course, it's easy to look good when the defense is rushing three, and dropping eight back into coverage. I think the Bills significantly upgraded the interior of their OL over the long haul. Whether that translates into an upgrade for the 2009 season, however, is another story entirely. And even if Levitre and Wood turn in very strong rookie year performances, there's no telling how Walker and Butler will perform at their new positions. I'm particularly uncomfortable with the idea of Walker as a LT.

I don't think NFL teams are allowed to do trades with CFL teams.

That's a solid post, Dean. I think that part of the perceived overlap between the words "average" and "mediocre" is that people sometimes use the word "average" to mean "mildly disappointing." (In a perfect world, "average" would only mean one thing: average. But this world isn't always perfect.) I also agree that there isn't necessarily a huge distinction between "great" and "elite."

No. NO! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! This sounds so familiar. A guy was some other team's backup at center, but they had a good running game while he was on the field. Ergo, he must have been good, or else said team wouldn't have run the ball so well. That, at least, was what I heard when Melvin Fowler was first brought in. I never bought into the Melvin Fowler hype. Early in his career, Cleveland apparently decided he wasn't starter material, and drafted his replacement. The rest of the league agreed with the Browns, which is why Fowler couldn't land a starting gig. Hence the fact he became Birk's backup in Minnesota. Supposedly, he distinguished himself so well in his appearances there that someone just had to make him a starter. Hopefully, Hangartner won't be another Melvin Fowler story. At least this time around, only one team decided it didn't want Hangartner as its starter. In Fowler's case, it was every team!

I'm not sure why I'm defending B. Harami, considering that he just did the unthinkable and insulted 300! But . . . average and mediocre are not the same thing. Saying that someone is of average height, or of average intelligence, or put in an average effort, is not the same thing as saying that someone is mediocre in these areas. Mediocre = rather poor or inferior.

Where we differ: Owens was great a few years ago. This year, at his age, he may merely be good. As a slot receiver, Josh Reed is good (not mediocre). As a LT, Walker is more likely to be mediocre than good. Schobel is probably old enough to be considered average, rather than good. Kelsay is probably mediocre, rather than garbage. Florence is closer to mediocre than to average. Whitner is closer to good than to average (though by no means worthy of that 8th overall pick!)

Good point. In 2008, Lee Evans ranked 19th overall and 18th among WRs, in terms of receiving yards. Marshawn Lynch ranks 65th among RBs in terms of yards per attempt. However, 42 of the guys in front of him had fewer than 100 rushing attempts. But even after they're taken away, that's still 23rd among RBs with over 100 carries. I'll grant that Lynch had below-average run blocking, so his actual rank is somewhat higher. Whether grading him on a curve is enough to put him in the top 10 RBs, however, is an open question. Does anyone have a link to a good website for player rankings?

In the year the Rams won the Super Bowl, Kurt Warner had one of the finest seasons of quarterbacking by any quarterback, ever. He followed it up by some less impressive seasons (including some bad years when he was injured)--but that one year was spectacular. It's very unlikely Edwards will have a year that's even close to Warner's Super Bowl year/performance. The Rams had Orlando Pace at LT. The Bills have Langston Walker. Isaac Bruce was a dominant WR who could be consistently productive even when being double covered. The same can't be said for Lee Evans. There's a world of difference between Marshall Faulk (an amazing football player) and the Bills' third string RB (Dominique Rhodes). I expect to see the Bills make some improvement in some phases of the game, especially later in the season. But it's very unlikely they'll match the Greatest Show on Turf--at least not in 2009.