Orton's Arm

I can only speak for myself, but at around this time last year, I saw the Dolphins as maybe a 6-10 team. The fact they won as many games as they did came as a surprise. Maybe if I'd thought about their situation a little more deeply, it wouldn't have. They added a wily veteran quarterback in the form of Chad Pennington; turning what had been a position of weakness into one of strength. They had a very good draft, beginning with the first overall draft pick. They added a lot of free agents; who collectively performed better than I'd expected. They upgraded their coaching staff. Good point. An interesting experiment would be to denote an "expected strength of schedule" (before the season begins), and compare it to "actual strength of schedule" (after the season ends). I tend to agree that the Bills had a good draft. Which is probably a good thing, because the Bills could easily be starting five or six rookie players at some point in the 2009 season. (Two on the OL, Maybin at DE, Byrd at FS, Nelson at TE, and Harris at OLB.) A reasonable scenario would be for those rookies to have problems early on, but to play well in the last several games of the season (after they've started getting a better feel for the NFL). Come 2010, they'd pick up right where they left off. If the 2009 draft turns out to be a very good one (which could well be the case), odds are the full magnitude of that benefit won't be apparent in 2009. On the other hand, it's possible that many people (including me) are over-rating the quality of this draft, exactly as so many of us did for the 2006 draft. I don't think we are, but there's only one way to truly know for sure. And that's to wait and see . . .

Unfortunately, the Dean has been known to act that way on more than one occasion. Which is too bad, because when he sticks to rational conversation (as opposed to inane attacks against other posters) he can make some good points.

21st seems like a reasonable prediction to me. Bear in mind the following: Last season, the Bills went 7-9 against a soft schedule. This year the schedule's a lot tougher. The Bills lost a fair number of veterans, at least on the offensive line. While the interior offensive linemen may be better over the long run, it's realistic to expect offensive linemen to experience significant problems. You could also make the argument that rookie defensive linemen very often produce little; so our expectations for Maybin should be modest until his second year. The Bills experienced a downgrade at LT; going from Peters to Langston Walker. Terrell Owens is getting on in years; and may not provide the same impact he once would have. Based on the above, a 6-10 (or even 5-11) record is not out of the question. On the other hand, you could argue that additions like Owens and Hangartner will bring the record up to 7-9. (Especially with a little luck, and a few unforeseen factors breaking our way.) Is there a chance for a winning record this season? Sure. If our rookies develop quickly, if Owens has a good year, if we avoid significant injuries, if the offensive line gels rapidly, if a few lucky breaks go our way, a 9-7 record is not out of the question. But such a record is, in my opinion, a lot less likely than 6-10. As things stand, the power ranking they gave us seems about right.

If it breaks off your TSW login, you're using the wrong web browser. I suggest you upgrade to Firefox. It's a lot safer, more secure, and more resistant to malware and viruses than Internet Explorer.

It's my understanding that, back when he was a defensive coordinator, his defenses were fairly run of the mill. That doesn't necessarily make him a slightly below average coordinator. Perhaps he had really bad defensive talent, and coached that lack of talent into overachieving--but still somewhat average or below average--defenses.

I didn't fall for it. The teams we beat en route to that 5-1 record were, for the most part, weaker teams. And a lot of those wins were very close. Even though the Bills won, it was clear the team had serious weaknesses. I never bought into the two counterarguments that were made. Namely, that "you play who you play" and "a win's a win." By that people meant I should have been happy with the record at the time and unconcerned about the serious weaknesses I saw. I'll take a 5-1 record any time, but I realized the Bills had to seriously improve the quality of their play if they hoped to get wins against better teams. In a lot of those first six games, the offensive line would provide no pass protection at all for the first half or three quarters, and play lights-out in the fourth quarter. Given the lack of run blocking, the offense would come up dry for most of the game. You can't do much when you're being flat-out dominated in the trenches. But then in the fourth quarter, the offensive line would take control (at least in the passing game), allowing Trent to produce dramatic comebacks. The Bills appear to be serious about fixing the problems on their line, at least on the interior. Hangartner, Wood, and Levitre are solid additions to our line. Losing Peters will hurt. Last season he was an asset in the running game, but a liability in the passing game. Two seasons ago, he was a very solid asset in both phases of the game. I have no confidence that Langson Walker will be anything more than a mediocre LT. Hopefully they will address that position early in the 2010 draft. If they can fill that hole, and if Steve Johnson emerges as a solid possession receiver, and if Nelson emerges as the TE the Bills need, the weaknesses of the 2008 Bills should be corrected (at least on offense).

Talk is cheap.

The cases you've mentioned are not exactly parallel. Martha Stewart used inside information to avoid taking a loss on some stock she owned. (She sold her shares shortly before the stock took a plunge.) What she did is not a good thing, and she went to prison for it. But it's not in the same category as torturing and killing innocent animals.

Good post, and I agree completely. I've written about the Bills' CB issue here.

The Bills already have their third string quarterback in the form of Gilbran Hamdan. It's far from obvious that Vick would be an upgrade.

Good point. I'll add that Johnson was on the tail end of a ten year career. Losman's career seems to be winding down after his fifth year in the league.

Avoiding sacks is just one area of a quarterback's overall performance. It's an area in which Losman and Johnson are both very weak; with Johnson being (as you point out) even worse than Losman. But just because Johnson was the worse of the two at avoiding sacks, does not mean he was the worse QB overall. Johnson averaged 7.2 yards per pass attempt with a QB rating of 83.6. Losman averaged 6.6 yards per pass attempt with a QB rating of 75.6. You might point out that in Johnson's case, both numbers are a little inflated because he doesn't get penalized for taking a sack. But the same could be said about Losman's numbers, albeit to a somewhat lesser degree. Moreover, long bombs to Evans can do a lot to increase a QB's yards per attempt and passer rating stats. Defenses have since learned to take those long bombs away from Losman. This past season, Losman averaged 5.6 yards per pass attempt. In his last season with the Bills, Johnson averaged 6.8 yards per pass attempt. (And bear in mind that in 2001, Johnson was playing behind an absolute disaster of an offensive line.)

Good point about those Cowboys teams. They had so much talent it was ridiculous. Practically every starter was at or near a Pro Bowl level. Most Super Bowl champions could not have stood up to that juggernaut. The Cowboys would have rolled right over any Super Bowl champion since 2000. The most recent team which could have gone against them on a relatively even footing would have been one of the '49ers squads from back in the '80s. And even then the Cowboys might well have won.

Good post, and you're right. RJ wins this one, and it's not even close. Johnson's Achilles heel was anything having to do with sacks: getting rid of the ball on time, pocket presence, injuries. Losman wasn't RJ-bad in those areas, but each of those things was still a significant weakness for him. Losman's strengths involved anything physical: his speed and his arm strength. Johnson didn't have Losman-level physical gifts, but he still had a good, strong arm and good quickness. Then there's everything else. Short passes. Intermediate passes. Even accuracy when throwing the long bomb. Johnson wins against Losman in each of those areas, hands-down. In many of those categories, Johnson destroys Losman. Touch on short passes. Accuracy and consistency in the intermediate passing game. Grasp of the mental side of the game.

Considering that Polian was running the Bills back then, and is running the Colts right now, yours is a fairly easy question to answer. Is first contract and out something you think about when you think about Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Jeff Saturday, or the other building blocks of that team? Can you name me even one Polian-era Colts player who, despite being very successful, was allowed to hit free agency in the prime of his career?

Since 1993, the Bills have used five first round picks on CBs (Thomas Smith, Burris, Winfield, Clements, McKelvin), and three first round picks on QBs (Johnson, Bledsoe, Losman). During that same span, the Colts used only one first round pick on a CB (Marlin Jackson) and one first round picks on the QB position (Peyton Manning). Losing those two extra first round picks (plus an occasional pick in a later round) on quarterback didn't help us, but it hasn't hurt us nearly as badly as has the first round CB hemorrhage. With the exception of Marshall Faulk, whenever a Colts' first round pick went on to have a successful career, most of that career was spent with the team that drafted him. You could say exactly the same thing about the Bills, back when they were building themselves into a Super Bowl contender. When you come right down to it, there isn't a whole lot of difference between how Polian ran the Bills and how he's run the Colts--despite the introduction of free agency. Having a first round pick go first contract and out wasn't Polian's style, either here in Buffalo or with Indy.

Probably a good comparison team for us is the Indianapolis Colts. It's the same general manager (Bill Polian) we used to have, and Polian's success with the Manning era Colts came after the introduction of free agency. Let's look at their first round picks, from 1994 - 2005: QB: Peyton Manning Result: dramatic success story who will spend his useful career with the Colts. WR: Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne Result: Both players proved successful, and both will have given their useful careers to the Colts. RB: Marshall Faulk, Edgerrin James Result: Falk was traded after giving the Colts five years. Out of a ten year career, James gave the Colts his first seven. G: Tarik Glenn Result: a ten year career for the Colts. TE: Dallas Clark Result: Clark has given the Colts six years thus far, and is still with the team. DE: Ellis Johnson, Dwight Freeney Out of his ten years in the league, Johnson gave the Colts seven. Freeney has given the Colts seven years thus far, and is still with the team. LB: Trev Alberts, Rob Morris Result: Trev Alberts was out of the NFL after three years. Rob Morris gave the Colts eight years before hanging up his cleats. CB: Marlin Jackson Result: Jackson has been a Colt the past four years, and is still with the team. With the exception of Faulk, the Colts' first round success stories spent the bulk of their useful careers with the Colts. And even in Faulk's case, the Colts at least got something (a second and fifth) for the guy. Compare that to the post Super Bowl era Bills--a team that's blithely spent first round picks on CBs, again and again, even though their average first round CB success story only provides the Bills with 5.5 years before vamoosing in free agency. If the Bills don't care enough about the CB position to retain their own top-tier free agents--which they clearly don't--then they shouldn't use first round picks on it in the first place. The fact that they have is a symptom of short-sighted general managers--guys living for today--rather than a GM like Polian who's clearly focused on using his first round picks to find long-term building blocks for his team.

When I checked on this thread, my first reaction was, Cool. It's up to two pages already. Glad to see things are going well. Then I looked at people's posts, and saw that, with a few exceptions (such as SilverMike and Bill from NYC) no actual content had been added to this thread. But one poster decided to give his hooting a thin veneer of intellectual respectability. To do this, he tried to argue that the Bills are generally reluctant to retain their most successful players at any position. The problem, supposedly, wasn't that the front office valued CBs too highly in the draft (too many first round picks) or too little in free agency (none of those first round picks were extended). Instead, he felt that, had those first round picks been used on players at other positions, and had those players done as well as the CBs did, they too would have been allowed to go first contract and out. To examine that particular argument more closely, let's look at the Bills' first round picks starting around the time of the Super Bowl era: Offensive line: John Fina, Ruben Brown, Mike Williams. Result: every player was either a bust (Williams) or was retained for the bulk of his useful career. WR: Eric Moulds, Lee Evans. Result: both players were successful picks, who have given (or will have given) the majority of their careers to Buffalo. QB: Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, J.P. Losman Result: none of the guys worked out. TE: no one RB: Antowain Smith, Marshawn Lynch Result: Smith was released after a few years, and continued to produce at a so-so level. Lynch is entering his fourth season with the Bills. Defensive line: Erik Flowers, John McCargo Result: Flowers was a bust, McCargo's career looks iffy LB: nobody Safety: Henry Jones, Donte Whitner Result: of Jones' twelve seasons in the league, ten were spent with Buffalo. CB: James Williams, Thomas Smith, Jeff Burris, Antoine Winfield, Nate Clements, Leodis McKelvin Result: Of his six years in the league, Williams spent four with Buffalo. Of Smith's nine years in the league, seven were spent with the Bills. Of Burris' ten years in the NFL, four were spent with Buffalo. Of Winfield's ten years (and counting) in the NFL, five were spent with Buffalo. Clements gave the Bills six years, and is now with the '49ers. The story is clear. From 1990 - 2005, there were five successful non-CBs chosen in the first round. All of them were retained for the majority of their careers. During that same span, four successful CBs were chosen in the first round. Those four players averaged 5.5 years in Buffalo before leaving.

In one or two recent discussions I've seen, I've been surprised by many fans' willingness to accept the idea of using a first round pick on a guy you know will leave after his first contract is over. I don't think a lot of people realize exactly how damaging it is when you don't hold onto your first round picks beyond their first contracts. So I decided to take a look at what would have happened, had some of our other first round picks left the team after giving us five years. Jim Ritcher would have left after the 1984 season. Jim Kelly would have left after the '89 season. Bruce Smith would have been gone after '89. Suppose some of our other draft picks had gone five years and out: Fred Smerlas would have left after the '83 season Darryl Talley would have left after the '87 season Frank Reich would have been gone after '89 Andre Reed would have been gone after '89 Had the Bills allowed their most successful draft picks to go first contract and out, it's very unlikely that they would have made it to even one Super Bowl in the early '90s; let alone four in a row. Letting our most successful draft picks go first contract and out would have been a terrible idea back in the '80s, and it hasn't gotten any smarter since then. Any time you have a first round pick, your goal should be to find a long-term building block; not some CB who's going to go first contract and out. If you're not rigorously pursuing long-term building blocks for your team, you're setting that team up for mediocrity over the long haul.

I have, and it related to a trade with Denver. Marv said something along the lines of, "why risk losing out on the player you want when all you're getting in return is a second round pick?" or something to that effect. Below is a quote from a Peter King article about this:

Clements' contract expired while TD was the GM. Moreover, TD was the GM who let Antoine Winfield go first contract and out; indicating he wasn't willing to pay top dollar to retain his own first rate CBs. That being the case, he knew that if Clements did well, it would be another first contract and out situation. When a GM uses a first round pick on a CB--and then lets that CB go first contract and out--he doesn't deserve the same grade he would have received if he'd obtained a long-term building block. At least that's my take on it. Others might feel that obtaining a first contract and out player (such as Clements) deserves just as much credit as obtaining a long-term building block (such as Ruben Brown). Lee Evans was drafted 13th overall. He hasn't exceeded the expectations one typically associates with a WR taken at that early point in the draft--at least not in my view. Had he been taken in the 20s, I would have given him an A. Lynch was taken 12th overall; and a pick like that is associated with high expectations. Bills' starting RBs have traditionally had short careers here: Willis McGahee, Travis Henry, Antowain Smith. The last time we had a starting RB with longevity was Thurman Thomas; and Lynch is a lot worse than Thomas at avoiding the hard hits. If he's still playing at or near this level in his tenth season, I'll admit that I should have given him a B rather than a C.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with people who very clearly have nothing intelligent to contribute to the discussion. I will, however, be willing to discuss my post with people whose comments have (gasp!) actual information content.

There are a lot of things that could be said in that discussion. I'll focus on just one thing--how the two of them did with their first round picks--while recognizing that a lot of other factors go into how one scores them overall. I've assigned each first round pick a grade, as follows: A = exceeds expectations for the pick B = meets expectations for the pick C = falls below expectations for the pick, but still a solid starter D = falls seriously below expectations for the pick, but still someone you'd like to have on your roster F = outright bust Longevity is also factored in. If a player went first contract and out, I'll give him a significantly lower score than he'd have gotten if he'd stayed here his whole career. TD's first round picks: Nate Clements: C (This would have been an A had Clements not gone first contract and out.) Mike Williams: F Drew Bledsoe: D (This would have been a C had Bledsoe lasted longer than three years.) Willis McGahee: C Lee Evans: B J.P. Losman: F Average: 1.5 (on a scale of 0 - 4) Marv's first round picks: Donte Whitner: C John McCargo: D Marshawn Lynch: C (His grade is lowered a bit by the fact that he probably won't have a very long career.) Average: 1.7 (on a scale of 0 - 4) As you can see, there isn't a whole lot of difference between how Marv and TD did in the first round. Between them, the two general managers found no As, and only one B. When you think about the Bills' lack of game changers, their lack of superstar players, it comes back to the lack of As and Bs in the first round of the draft.

Some of the numbers I saw were interesting. Only two Bills' linemen won more than 80% of their battles on running plays, and both those guys are no longer on the team (Peters and Dockery). Most of the guys averaged about five yards at the point of attack, though Langson Walker weighed in at a disappointing 4.1. Then I looked at Nick Mangold, because I'd really wanted the Bills to take him back in 2006. He won over 94% of his battles, and averaged 6.1 yards at the point of attack. Both those stats were better than those of any Bills lineman from last year.

We keep track of stats for quarterbacks, receivers, running backs, etc. Why not have a few stats for offensive linemen? In particular, the fact that only two of our five linemen were above the 80% threshold tells us a lot about the kind of run-blocking we had last year. The fact that Lynch and Jackson did much better when the offensive line won its battles than when it didn't tells me that, on running plays, a good line is a lot more important than a good RB. A lot of people have been making that point anyway, but Joyner backed it up with numbers. Good for him!