Orton's Arm

It's not as obvious as all that!! The Bills could use their first round pick on a safety!

This is a familiar theme with this Bills team.

That's a fair point. But in Steve Johnson, we may well have gotten a much better football player than you'd typically expect from the seventh round. Add in the fact that Johnson played in a more sophisticated college offense than did Hardy (and is thus more NFL-ready), and there you go. There is a potential problem for Hardy though. If all the Bills' receivers were healthy, the best WR combination they could put on the field would be Evans, Reed, and Johnson. Evans is a proven WR, and Reed has quietly become an effective slot WR. It would be very difficult for Hardy to unseat either of those two. The problem for Hardy is that while he may eventually become a good WR, he clearly isn't one right now. If his learning process takes too long, Johnson may secure one of the top three WR positions. If Johnson becomes a known commodity, if he proves to be a solid player, do you honestly think this coaching staff would send him to the bench in favor of a comparatively unknown Hardy? Hardy had better hurry up and learn fast. Because once Johnson gets entrenched in one of the top three WR positions, he could be very difficult for Hardy to push past.

Now that was a post! I can't really think of much to add, other than it looks like some people were closer to being right about Losman than others. You'd think that a former player like Jaws would have a better shot at being right than a sports writer like Sully. But I guess not, at least not in this case.

He successfully expressed the purpose of this thread with the thread's first post. If you choose to ignore or disbelieve that explanation, and if you insist that he has some hidden, insidious motive for having started this thread, you're welcome to ignore it. Personally, I don't see why you've completely ruled out or ignored even the possibility that we should simply take him at his word. The explanation he provided was straightforward and very believable. He (correctly) views the Losman pick as a failure, and wants to determine the extent to which draft experts had predicted that failure. This would help address the larger question of the extent to which busts can be predicted (and hopefully avoided) in advance of making one's draft pick. I'd also like to go back and take a look at what draft experts had been saying about the Mike Williams pick.

Thanks. I'm a fan of some of Poe's work, such as "The Raven" and "The Fall of the House of Usher." Some of his other work is just depressing. Edwards is currently painful to watch, and as you point out he's not contributing much to the team. But let's be realistic here: the Bills are not going to win the Super Bowl this year (sorry Senator). Given that fact, the Bills should use this year as a building block to success in future years. So I think the Bills should use the next five games to help answer the question, "can Edwards work through this? Can he get his confidence back? Can he learn to be an effective quarterback when there are eight guys in coverage?" If you had some other young quarterback you wanted to evaluate, it would be different. But we don't. If we pull Edwards now, we might get one or two additional wins this season. And in exchange for those meaningless wins, we'd a) not give Edwards the chance to show us whether he's capable of fighting through this, and b) deprive Edwards of valuable game experience. Jauron's philosophy of "stick with whichever player happens to have the starting position at the time" is probably sub-optimal in general. In this case I think it's a good thing, as it will likely result in us giving a young, promising player the chance to work through his early career struggles. That was a good article, and I agree fully with his implication that Edwards has lost confidence and has lost the decisiveness that had been his hallmark earlier in the season. Hopefully he'll bounce back. A different article made me suspect that part of the reason for all those passes to Lynch was how he's being coached: I don't want to read too much into those comments, but neither can I discount the possibility that coaching may be playing a significant role in Edwards' current timid play.

I strongly resent that! When I read "The Raven" I got exactly the opposite message out of it.

I agree with this. To succeed in the NFL, a coach has to have a deep-seated desire to go for the jugular. To rip the other guy's throat out when he shows the slightest hint of weakness. To ruthlessly exploit any shortcomings the opponent may have. You have to want to do these things, even if it means taking a few chances along the way. And the chances you take need to be the right chances--the ones that your players are most likely to come up big on. As you point out, Jauron is too cautious to be the kind of coach I've described. He's not going to coach with a wide-open, "play to crush the other team" mentality. He's not going to coach like a lion--he's going to coach like an extra-cautious banker. Coaching like that isn't good enough to get past the first or second round of the playoffs. I once watched a nature show about a gopher tortoise. A female rattlesnake had moved into a gopher tortoise's hole, and the two animals shared it together. They didn't seem to mind each other. Because of the female rattlesnake living in the tortoise hole, a male rattlesnake began spending a lot of time nearby. As the male rattlesnake was coiled up on the ground, he looked up in a tree and saw a hawk. The two animals looked at each other for a moment or two. Then the hawk made his move. He swooped down from that tree branch. The rattlesnake launched himself at the hawk, knowing that his only defense was his poisonous fangs. The rattlesnake was fast, but the hawk was faster. Better. More lethal. In the blink of an eye, the hawk avoided the rattlesnake's attack, killed the snake with his talons, and carried the snake off to his nest. He fed the snake to his chicks. To be a winning Super Bowl coach, you have to have exactly the same mentality as that hawk. You have to be willing to attack, to go for the kill, and you have to know that your attack will succeed. The hawk knew he was faster and better than the rattlesnake, which is why he risked his life for a meal.

I agree. At very least the Bills should hire him to . This guy would be very good at describing this Bills team.

During the early 1920s, someone thrust a racist pamphlet into the hands of an unknown soldier named Adolf Hitler. That was the second most obvious example of preaching to the choir of which I'm aware.

Maybe the original poster was thinking of . There are some parallels.

I also dislike attempts to assign W/L records to QBs. By that logic, Trent Dilfer's time as the Ravens' starter was one of the finest quarterbacking performances in NFL history. Conversely, (at least by the messed-up record as a starter logic) John Elway was a mediocre QB for most of his career. A quarterback is just one piece of a puzzle, and the team's overall success depends on all the pieces of that puzzle. That said, a reasonably competent performance from the quarterback position would have made the difference between a win and a loss. I hope that someone on the Bills' coaching staff is able to take him aside and help him regain the confidence he seems to have lost. It's painful to watch a guy play the way Trent played against the Browns when I've seen him perform at a much better level.

I strongly respect what you've done in the above post. I accept your apology, and in return I apologize for my own past imperfections. To move onto the football-related portion of your post. In past games, I'd noticed defenses dropping a lot of guys into coverage, because they didn't respect the running threat. But as someone noted after having watched a previous game (I don't remember which one) the Bills never ran the ball out of the shotgun formation, and only twice all game threw the ball when Trent was under center. Maybe defenses have formed the habit of dropping a lot of guys back into pass coverage on shotgun plays, and stacking the box whenever they saw Trent under center. The solution to this problem is fairly obvious. I've also heard that the offensive line runs a Denver-like scheme, but with bigger, slower offensive linemen than Denver has. It's simply a case of a square peg in a round hole. (Or maybe, in this case, some very round pegs in square holes.) Last night's performance was different from what I'd been used to seeing. The offensive line and the running game performed significantly better than expected. Unfortunately, Edwards had a very disappointing performance. And the main factor in that poor performance was him, not unfavorable circumstances. I strongly believe that Edwards is a much better player than what he showed last night. Maybe his confidence is down. Maybe he's just going through a slump. But whatever it is, he's just not on his game right now. I honestly don't think the problem is his arm strength. He'd benefit from a stronger arm, as would just about any other NFL quarterback. But he's strong enough to hit Evans on the long bomb, and to throw lasers over the middle. (The pass to set up the 47 yard FG attempt comes to mind.) His arm strength didn't cause the interceptions. And his arm strength wasn't the reason why he kept dumping the ball off to Lynch. To be honest, it felt like he was playing scared. Edwards would clearly benefit from improved circumstances (the return of Josh Reed, better play-calling, etc.). But the main reason for his poor performance against Cleveland was him, not his circumstances. He needs to put his problems behind him, and play with the same confidence he'd had earlier in the year.

After seeing the video, I can see why you'd want a guy like that on the team. The Bills aren't a draft away from filling all their needs, and as you point out one of those needs is at DT. If Cody is the highest rated player on their board when it's time for them to pick, I'd have no problem with them taking him. Doing so would probably mean waiting a year to address the need at DE, but I can live with that. Under this scenario our drafts would be as follows: 2009 1. Cody, DT 2. C 3. OG 4. OG 5 - 7 - depth/special teams players Re-sign Crowell. Also re-sign either Greer or McGee (or both). 2010 1. DE 2. TE 3. Either RT or DL (depends) 4 - 7 depth/special teams players

Are only 6 wins away from completing a perfect season. In other news, the New York Giants appear very likely to repeat as Super Bowl Champions.

If I was GM, I'd do the following in the 2009 draft: 1) DE (or OL if no round 1-worthy DE was available) 2) C 3) OG 4) OG 5 - 7) depth and special teams players In addition, I'd re-sign Angelo Crowell to take care of the need at OLB. I'd also re-sign either McGee or Greer to prevent this team from drafting yet another CB in the first round.

It sounds like your view is closer to mine than it had been; albeit your opinion of Losman is still more positive than my own. To what extent has the offensive supporting cast truly been upgraded over the last three years? Very few people on this board would argue that our offensive line run blocks at all on most running plays. Its level of pass protection has declined substantially from last year, and there are frequently times when defenders arrive at the quarterback without the offensive line slowing them down. The Bills don't have a legitimate pass catching TE on the roster right now. In some ways, the receiving corps of three years ago was better, because you had a big, physical target (Moulds) and a speed player to stretch defenses (Evans). Over the past several games, Edwards' targets included Evans and . . . who? Josh Reed has been injured, James Hardy is a struggling rookie, Roscoe Parrish is small and one-dimensional. I don't know that the level of performance of the offensive supporting cast over the last three games--from the offensive coordinator and offensive line on down--is that much better than what we saw in 2005. While Edwards clearly looked bad against New England, his performance in the Jets and Dolphins games would have been solid had it not been for the turnovers. If you blame the turnovers exclusively on Edwards (and many here do), then those two performances were indeed bad. But if a quarterback gets hit as he throws due to bad pass protection, is the resulting interception the quarterback's fault, or the fault of the offensive line? If a defender comes through the line unblocked, on a three man rush, is the resulting safety the quarterback's fault, or the fault of the offensive line? When things like that happen to most other quarterbacks, people point the finger at the offensive line. When things like that happen to Edwards, there are many who remain silent about the contribution poor line play may have made to the turnovers, and point the finger squarely at Edwards. That's true. I'd argue that his lack of arm strength was less important in our 2005 offense (where we couldn't pass protect long enough for guys to get open deep anyway) than it would be in a more typical offense. But all else being equal, you obviously want a quarterback who can make all the throws, and Holcomb doesn't fall into that category. I agree, although right now what's really hurting the Bills is the lack of a rushing threat. Defenses are only rushing 3 - 4 players and dropping everyone else into pass coverage. Better offensive line play and better play calling would force defenses to honor the rushing threat and would prevent teams' defenses from suffocating the Bills' receivers. Without looking at specific examples the validity of this criticism is difficult to evaluate. There have probably been some cases like the following. Someone (such as you) argues A. In arguing A, this person brings up some valid points. There may have been times when, before acknowledging the validity of those points (which to me appeared obvious), I went straight into what I felt to be the weaknesses or gaps in whatever had been argued. This is an area in which I'm probably better today than I was a few years ago, but I'm not perfect there just yet. There have been times when I've felt you haven't acted in the way you've described. And when you express your own view by name-calling those who disagree with you, it does not appear to outsiders that you're engaging in the reasoned, open-minded discussion you hope for from others. It's very easy for online discussions to degenerate into flame wars. Your tendency to be very quick with "cheap shots" as you put it can lead discussions into flame-like territory. Maybe some of those discussions were with . . . the less intellectually inclined, and were doomed from the beginning. But there have been other times when you have turned what should have been intelligent, reasoned discussions into name-calling contests. Losman's initial Wonderlic score was quite low. He retook the test and received a much higher score the second time around. At the time I'd posted about this, I'd thought the Wonderlic was an aptitude or intelligence test. Something smelled fishy to me, because it shouldn't be possible to receive that big a boost on a well-designed intelligence test, from one test to the next. However, someone (it wasn't you) decided that rather than calling me names, they'd provide me with additional information about the Wonderlic. Based on the sample questions I saw, the Wonderlic is not a well-designed intelligence test. Many of the questions are knowledge-based, and a number of the questions appear to have been designed as time sinks. With a test like that, studying can indeed produce a big boost in one's test score. After seeing those sample questions, I decided individual players' scores are not necessarily very conclusive with respect to their underlying intelligence. I'm a little surprised the NFL still uses the Wonderlic instead of some other, better test.

Go here for the full article.

I agree that you generally had the sense or caution to use disclaimers when presenting your positions. Your lack of moderation is demonstrated primarily by how you treated those who disagreed with those positions. There are many people who, when describing a quarterback's "potential," are referring to his physical potential. This view is false. A quarterback's potential isn't primarily about his arm strength or how fast he can run: it's about his ability to read defenses, to hit receivers in stride, and generally to be very good at operating a complex offense. What, specifically, has Losman done to convince you that he has the "potential" to be much better at these things than Rivers? I typically divide first round QBs into two categories: those who are noted as "polished" "accomplished pocket passers," etc., and those who are "raw" but who have plenty of "upside" (i.e., physical upside). Quarterbacks in the latter category, such as Losman, are typically far more likely to be busts than are quarterbacks in the former category. As far as Losman's "treatment" from the coaches, bear in mind that he had three consecutive horrendous performances. Those were in his second year in the NFL, and his second year in that offense. Based on those performances, and on what they'd seen of him in practice, the coaches decided to bench him. I don't think the other quarterbacks you mentioned would have received such "treatment" from their coaches, because they would have done more to have inspired confidence from their coaches in the first place. However, you do have a good point about the weakness of Losman's supporting cast, especially in 2005. Laugh all you want to over that one! Go ahead! Really! Use those words in support of your contention that I'm an idiot, or a troll, or whatever other names you might have called me! I encourage it. And once your finished, sit back and read your own post on the subject, #474373: Are you still laughing about what I'd written about Holcomb? No? Interesting . . . The bottom line with Holcomb was that he was very good at some things (such as dumping the ball off) and weak at other things (such as throwing the ball deep). In 2005, we had a very bad offensive line (what else is new?). If your offensive line can't pass protect long enough to let the receivers get open deep--and ours clearly could not--then your best chance for offensive success is to build your offense around dinking and dunking. If you want a QB to run an offense like that, Holcomb comes to mind as a qualified candidate. How well do you think you've lived up to your own criteria? How good a job do you think you've done at processing others' opinions, or admitting your own mistakes, or considering other views? I can't recall a single example of your having demonstrated strength--or even rudimentary competence--in any of these areas. And yet I don't think you're a moron. You may be uncivil, rude to those who disagree with you, condescending, heavily reliant on the argumentum ad hominum technique, and completely unaware of your own myriad failings and flaws, but you are not a moron. You accuse me of lacking ability to process others' opinions. And it's true that I typically do not allow other people's unsupported opinions to change my own views. Given that the overwhelming majority of opinions around here are unsupported (including yours), this tendency may make me appear stubborn. But when people have presented actual information with which to support their opinions, I am willing to change my views. For example, Dibs' posts persuaded me to regard the Whitner selection in a more positive light than I hitherto had done. Wraith's posts convinced me that Losman had become a more accurate passer than I'd realized. (Though the fact that the 2006 offense was considerably simplified demonstrates that he had not overcome his mental limitations.) You accuse me of failing to admit to mistakes. But just because a few people on this board loudly and repeatedly label one of my statements a "mistake" does not make it one. If you wish to continue with this accusation, please list examples in which others have demonstrated I was incorrect, and in which I failed to admit this incorrectness. You wrote that I "have a horrible time with the hypothetical and the analogy." Are you trying to say that you or others have made hypothetical statements or analogies which I haven't understood? Or are you suggesting that my own hypothetical statements and analogies have been weak? Assuming your accusation is about the latter, my response is that your inability to appreciate or understand the point of my hypothetical statements and analogies is part of a larger pattern of you failing to see intelligence in those who disagree with you. With a few exceptions, there are very few people in this forum who have your ability to string more than a few sentences together, and your tendency to discount the intelligence of those who see things differently than you see them.

Based on my recollection of my past discussions with you, I don't remember your having displayed nearly as much moderation, cool-headedness, self-control, or impartiality as you give yourself credit for above. I recall your behaving exactly as did many other diehard members of the Losman camp: you frequently resorted to name-calling whenever someone dared disagree with your pro-Losman view. (You also resort to name-calling when people disagree with your core political views, but that's not directly related to the subject at hand.) You have made over 11,000 posts to this list. Assuming an average of 50 words a post, we're looking at a total of 550,000 words. By comparison, Tolstoy's novel War and Peace contains 460,000 words. I don't claim to have gone back through and read each of those 11,000 posts. But even though I viewed only a small subset of your overall posting volume, I nevertheless found some . . . interesting material. Post 610746: Post 607956 (before the 2006 season began): Because of posts like that one, you called me a "troll." (see post 608813) and an "idiot" (post 598064). Post 598080: (This was written before the 2006 season.) Post 593890: Post 585261 (also before the 2006 season began): Now for your response: . . . Post 584956: Humorous indeed. The idea of having Phillip Rivers as our starting QB--instead of Losman--is certainly one to inspire a mixture of mirth and derision among any Bills fan.

Exactly. This team has too many deep-seated problems to inspire much confidence that it can beat the better teams in this league. The kind of win you've described is necessary to start creating that conference. Yet another win against a weak team (in this case, Cleveland) isn't enough.

I have to say that this post significantly increased my opinion of you. To address your second point, I agree that many people blamed that fumble on Losman. I wasn't one of them. In my opinion, 100% of the blame for that play belongs directly at the feet of the offensive line.

You've made a good point with this. It's easy for stats alone to be distorted, especially at the QB position. When evaluating a QB, you have to look a little deeper than just stats. You cite leadership and intangibles, and (depending on your definition of intangibles) I'll agree with that. Some styles of offense work well for a while, but eventually defenses catch up to them. Other styles can work under almost any circumstances and are very difficult to defend. One of the most important things to look at is whether a QB's stats were obtained by running a Kordell Stewart-like offense or a Tom Brady-like offense. A guy that puts up a good season under the former method is a lot more likely to be shut down in subsequent years than is a guy who puts up a good season under the latter method.

I'm with you on this. Think of all the times over these past few weeks when people have mentioned "Trent's" turnovers, posts written by people who made no effort at all to determine whether, perhaps, the offensive line might also have been to blame. On some other team, if a defensive lineman rushes untouched toward the quarterback and strips the ball away, the offensive line would get blamed. But when something like that happens to Trent, it's somehow all Trent's fault! Like you said, there are a lot of people here who believe what they want to believe, and aren't amenable to logic.

In my earlier post, I stated that Peyton Manning has often looked bad against the Patriots, so writing Trent off because he also looked bad against the Patriots would be a mistake. What's laughable is that you thought this was a "comparison" between Edwards and Manning. Next time, try to understand the points other people are making before attempting to criticize those points.