Orton's Arm

Thanks for the kind words and the quick response. It looks like we're more or less on the same page about just about everything except Crowell. I think that you're probably right about what will happen with respect to this player: it will be decided that he abandoned the team, and that he should be gotten rid of. The problem with that is that the Bills will replace him either with a first round pick or by using their 2nd and 3rd round picks to move up and take an OLB they like. Personally, I'd rather have Crowell at OLB plus upgrades at C and G, as opposed to a new OLB and just one upgrade on the line. Crowell has been a solid member of the team up until this injury thing. And in his defense, he may have felt that a) playing on that injured foot might have seriously jeopardized his long-term career, or b) that with the foot injury, he might not have been much more useful to the team than a healthy Ellison. I freely admit that part of the reason I'm giving Crowell the benefit of the doubt on this is because I'm tired of watching the Bills neglect the offensive line on draft day, only to field a line that either can't pass protect or can't run block. This year's line can't do either, except in the fourth quarter. If Ellison's contract demands are moderate, then I feel that re-signing him represents a calculated risk: a calculated risk justified by the fact it would free up draft day resources for use elsewhere.

Yours was an intelligent and well thought-out post. I agree with what you wrote, except with one apparent philosophical difference: I don't mind giving a few guys roster spots strictly because of special teams play. Take the Cardinals game, for example. I went back and counted the plays. Here's the breakdown of the number of plays each unit received: Defense: on the field for 77 plays Offense: on the field for 51 plays Extra point attempts: 7 plays Special teams other than extra point attempts: 18 plays Extra points are pretty much automatic for both teams, so let's ignore those. But those other 18 plays represented punts, kickoffs and FG attempts, all of which are very important in determining the outcome of the game. Between the two of them, the offense and defense averaged 64 plays over the course of the game. The special teams unit's 18 plays (excluding extra point attempts) represent 28% of that. If that one game is representative of how much the special teams unit sees the field in general, one could argue that your special teams unit is 28% as important as your offense or your defense. The actual percentage is probably higher, because so many special teams plays are of a boom or bust nature. You either make that 47 yard FG attempt, or you watch it sail wide to the right. You either tackle the other team's return guy, or you watch him run down the sidelines in the last 16 seconds of play to give his team the so-called "Music City Miracle." While most special teams plays aren't as dramatic or game-changing as those two, a typical special teams play probably makes more of a difference than a typical offensive or defensive play. A good special teams unit can nonetheless be a significant advantage. Toward that end, I think the Bills should retain Neil as well as other players who make solid contributions to the special teams effort. Above all, it's critical to retain our best special teams tacklers so as to prevent other teams' return units from exposing our coverage unit. Good blocking for our own coverage unit is also important so that we can take advantage of the talent of guys like McGee, Parrish, and McKelvin. With that out of the way, I'll go through your list. Veteran backup quarterback: I'm not sure if you labeled that 1) because you felt it was our most important need, or whether you assigned numbers at random. If the former, I'd disagree with you: our team has bigger needs than backup QB. But Losman will be gone after this season, and we clearly need to add a QB either via free agency or the draft. Offensive lineman: I agree with you that we should draft a center with our first round pick. This is clearly our biggest weakness among our starters, and Fowler will be a free agent after the year is over anyway. The Bills should firmly resist the temptation to use that pick on a CB, FS, or even a LB. Defensive end: I agree that a good defensive end would be a significant addition to our rotation. If there's a guy whom they've graded highly who's available with their second round pick, they should take him. But they shouldn't take a DE just to add another body. Doing that won't necessarily get them a significant upgrade over Denny. Better to use that second round pick on an OL position such as OG. Outside LB: the Bills can't realistically expect a significant upgrade to Crowell unless they use a first or early second round pick on the position. Unfortunately for the Bills, those early picks are desperately needed elsewhere. The Bills would be better served using their first two picks on the lines, as mentioned above, and re-signing Crowell. Tight end: I agree that this is a significant position of need, and I wouldn't be opposed to addressing it with our 2nd or 3rd round pick. But I'm not in love with the idea, and there's a chance we wouldn't bring in a guy who's much of an upgrade over the guys we have already. We may not be able to fill all our holes in just one off-season. Assuming the lines get addressed in the 2009 draft, I wouldn't be opposed to using a 1st or 2nd round pick on a TE in 2010. WR: I disagree about the idea of trading away a first round pick for a veteran WR. I think that either Hardy or Steve Johnson can evolve into a possession type WR. We should use our first round picks on positions where we know there's a need, such as C. Depth: I completely agree with what you've written about the importance of depth. This is especially true for rotational type positions such as defensive linemen.

There are two elements to having a successful draft: the tactical and the strategic. The tactical element boils down to finding players who play well at their positions. The strategic element is about using the draft to help you put together a solid and complete football team. The 2001 draft was much stronger tactically than it was strategically. 1. Nate Clements Tactical: a very good football player. Strategic: The decision to draft Nate Clements was also a decision to allow Antoine Winfield to go first contract and out. And given TD's decision to not pay Winfield market value, he had to know that when the time came, he'd also likely allow Clements to go first contract and out. Using a first round pick on a guy you expect (or should expect) to go first contract and out is a poor strategic choice. 2a. Aaron Schobel Tactical: a good pick Strategic: a good pick 2b. Travis Henry Tactical: a reasonably good football player Strategic: there were several excellent strategic reasons why TD should not have taken a RB with this pick. 1) The Bills already had Antowain Smith, but were in desperate need of an infusion of talent on the offensive line. Did Henry really provide that much of an upgrade over Antowain Smith? 2) Running backs' careers can often be short. TD should know this: when he was in Pittsburgh, Barry Foster's star shone brightly for a few years before he got replaced by Bam Morris. Morris was the Steelers' starter for a few years--and a good one too--until he was replaced by Bettis. Why draft a player who's likely to have a short career, such as Henry, when you're in the first year of a rebuilding program? 3a. Ron Edwards. Bust. 3b. Jonas Jennings. Jennings went first contract and out, which means something clearly went wrong somewhere. One could argue it was a tactical error, in that TD chose a player who was too injury prone. Or it may have been a strategic error. 4 - 7 Brandon Spoon looked like he had the potential to become a solid player, had he not gotten injured. Other than him, there was nothing noteworthy about this portion of the draft. They say you can't truly judge a draft until five years later. Five years after that draft who did we have left? We had Aaron Schobel, and that last year we squeezed out of Clements by franchising him. Using the five year standard, the 2001 draft was fairly underwhelming.

You are absolutely correct. Some of the problems we've had on the defensive line can be attributed to injuries to guys like Stroud and Schobel. But other than Peters getting back into shape, the serious, deep-seated problems we have on the offensive line appear more permanent. Maybe it's the blocking scheme. In at least one case it's the players, unless someone can think of a blocking scheme that would require the offensive center to get pushed four yards into the backfield on every play. My hope is that the Bills will address the offensive line with their first two picks. My fear is that those picks will get used on the defense--most likely 1 LB, and 1 CB or FS.

I agree that it's altogether too easy for defensive linemen to push Fowler around. As far as him making good line calls goes . . . I'm not so sure. This season I've noticed times when it appeared that the wrong line call was made. I suspect that's part of the reason why the line has typically failed to provide any pass protection at all until the 4th quarter, which to me is an even more serious problem than the absence of any noticeable run blocking. For those who have been examining the line's play in detail: how does the quality of Fowler's line calls compare to that of other centers in the league? I know that everyone makes mistakes, but has Fowler, this season, made more or fewer mistakes than is normal for a center?

If Mack is expected to be significantly better than Luigs, I wouldn't have any problem with the idea of using our 3rd round pick to trade up for Mack.

The people who have already replied to this post have written many of the things I'd want to say. That said, I'd like to address some of the things you'd written. You wrote that the Hamdan club was about humor. I'm not going to argue with that, except to point out (as you alluded to) that the joke was directed against anyone who'd supported Edwards over Losman. You wrote, "I hesitate to respond to your posts, as I have learned in the past, that sensible explanations rarely to [sic] far with you." If you're familiar with the Myers-Briggs personality system, I'm a personality type INTJ. Like most other INTJs, I tend to rethink my opinions under two circumstances: 1) if new information has been provided, or 2) if a new underlying logic--which I hadn't previously considered--has been described. If in the past you've failed to get me to rethink specific opinions, it's probably because you didn't do either of those two things. In any case, many (most?) of the things you were trying to change my mind about were topics about which I've ultimately been proved right. You urge me to forget about concepts like "Losman camp" or "Edwards camp," etc. This I cannot do, because I (and others who thought Losman would fail) have been called too many names by the members of the Losman camp to, at this point, start pretending that no Losman camp ever existed. I agree we all should act as though we're Bills fans. But that's not how many members of the Losman camp actually behaved, when confronted with opinions about Losman which differed from their own. I'm not trying to lump all Losman camp members into one group. There were those, such as Wraith, who argued Losman's case intelligently and without name-calling. I'll agree that most or all members of the Losman camp support Trent this year. Whether they supported him last year is another question entirely. Let's not mince words here. A lot of people here really wanted Losman to succeed. Not just because he was a Bills player, or because his success would help the team. They took a personal interest in him, and felt a lot more emotion about his career than about, say, the recent McCargo trade/admission of bust. (Both were lower first round draft picks.) These members of the Losman camp became so emotionally invested in that one player that they responded very strongly when anyone made negative statements about Losman. Calling Losman a mentally limited quarterback who'd never make it as a starter in the NFL was almost like calling their wives ugly and unfaithful. And that made it kind of difficult to have an intelligent discussion about him on these boards.

In other words, the point of the Hamdan club was to show that the only reason people wanted Edwards to start over Losman was because there is always going to be someone who prefers the backup over the starter. The fact that this club was poking fun at Edwards supporters is probably why the only two types of people who joined it were diehard Losman enthusiasts and maybe one or two Europeans genuinely excited about Hamdan. If you guys want to have an annoying fan club to shower false praise on a 3rd string QB, as a way of poking fun at Edwards supporters, go ahead. But it's disingenuous to pretend (as some in this thread have) that the fan club had nothing to do with a preference for Losman over Edwards.

Marv had his share of outright free agent failures, including Triplett, Peerless Price, Whittle, and Fowler. Robert Royal is a good blocking TE who never evolved into a good pass catching threat. The Walker and Dockery signings looked better last year than they have this year. I don't know that you can point to a single one of Marv's free agent signings and say, "This guy was a slam-dunk success." It's possible some of the guys he signed--such as Dockery and Walker--could become indisputable success stories by improving the quality and consistency of their play. But as of right now, I think you'd have to say that Marv's success stories came from the draft, not from free agency.

I take a somewhat less optimistic view of that draft than you. Of the four players you mentioned as "starters," how many are really starting quality? Is Keith Ellison really what you want your OLB to be? I'd label both Ellison and Brad Butler as guys who are decent backups (or a good backup, in Butler's case), but who aren't good enough to be long-term answers at their respective positions. Kyle Williams is having a good year this year--much better than last year, in fact. If he keeps this up, then yes, he will have earned the solid starter label. A draft that gives you two solid starters (Williams and Whitner), and some solid backups type players (Ellison, Butler, Youboty, etc.) is a good draft. But make no mistake--this team still has players who need to be upgraded, and Ellison and Butler are two of those players.

Last season McCargo showed flashes of becoming a solid DT. Obviously that didn't carry over into this season, but I was still hoping that we could get a 3rd. Maybe that was wishful thinking on my part. I guess it doesn't really matter. As for Gonzales, my understanding is that that trade fell apart because Gonzales didn't want to come here. I don't think the Bills were that interested in trading for a guy who didn't want to be here. You have to wonder whether he'd hold out, or if he'd would affect team chemistry, stuff like that. If you look at the initial value proposition of a 3rd rounder for a 32 year old TE, and if you take into account whatever problems we'd have because of Gonzales' desire to not be here, it's not all that attractive a deal.

That's it? I had my heart set on getting at least a 3rd.

What makes you say that, Dean? If I recall correctly, the Hamdan fan club suddenly appeared once Edwards was made the starter. Its nucleus consisted of die-hard members of the Losman camp. (As well as one or two Europeans who were actually serious about their pro-Hamdan statements.) If the Hamdan fan club wasn't about Losman, then please explain to me why it proved so attractive to those who were most optimistic about Losman, and why those who had a more pessimistic/realistic view of Losman didn't join the Hamdan fan club.

I'm with you on this. And back before the Takeo Spikes injury, I'd argued that the Bills should likewise trade away whichever veterans were reasonably old, yet who still had trade value. I was ridiculed for this at the time, but I thought (and still think) it would have been exactly what was needed. Sometimes the GM has to have the self-discipline to see when his team is in rebuilding mode, and act accordingly.

I respect Carucci's opinion a lot. I think he recognizes this team has serious problems--such as its offensive line, or lack thereof--which must be fixed before we're a legitimate top tier team.

Agreed, but you're not going far enough. Even the dime back should be a second rounder at worst. And it never hurts to use some draft choices to give yourself a little CB depth . . .

Welcome to the board. Please post more often . . . that was an excellent post!

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about whether Mike's points have been refuted. Personally, I think he's dead-on accurate, but as you point out this issue has indeed been discussed to death. If general managers around the league agree with your point of view, we should expect to see considerable interest in Losman once he becomes a free agent. If they agree with Mike, I wouldn't expect to see much more interest in Losman than there was in Harrington or in other first round QBs who didn't work out for the teams that picked them. We'll know in less than a year.

If you want to directly upgrade your running game, you can either upgrade your running back or your offensive line. During the post Super Bowl era, the Bills have used four picks in the first two rounds of the draft on RBs, and only two picks in those rounds on the offensive line. RBs: Antowain Smith (1st) Travis Henry (2nd) Willis McGahee (1st) Marshawn Lynch (1st) OLs: Ruben Brown (1st) Mike Williams (1st) This approach hasn't proven particularly successful at building a solid running game. As an aside, the Bills have numerous DB picks during the post Super Bowl era: DBs Thomas Smith (1st, 1993) Jeff Burris (1st, 1994) Antoine Winfield (1st, 1999) Nate Clements (1st) Donte Whitner (1st) Leodis McKelvin (1st) Every player on that list is either in his first contract, or else has gone first contract and out. Because the Bills have been so busy using their highest draft picks on RBs and first contract and out DBs, there haven't been very many high picks to use on the offensive line. RBs can often have short careers. DBs' careers are generally longer. But that extra length isn't very helpful for a team which consistently allows its first round CBs to go first contract and out. The Bills have used up their most valuable draft picks on what--for this team at any rate--have been revolving door positions such as RB and CB. As a result, the post Super Bowl era Bills have failed to build a strong core of players. And you can't get very far in the playoffs without that kind of core. To be successful, this team needs to adopt the philosophy that when a high draft pick player works out, he gets extended, period. And if the Bills aren't willing to pay the market rate for a given position--such as CB--then they have no business in using early picks on that position. To get back to your earlier point, the Bills aren't in a position to upgrade their RBs. 1) Lynch isn't the problem: the offensive line is. 2) You're almost certainly not going to get an upgrade for Lynch in the later rounds of the draft. 3) If you address RB with your first or second round picks, then that's a pick you're basically stealing from the offensive line. Even with an early pick, there's an excellent chance your new RB won't be a significant upgrade over Lynch. The Bills have no reason at all to draft a RB and every reason to address the OL for a change.

I'll give you that. But the Peters insertion/Walker move is no excuse for the way the interior of the line has embarrassed itself and flat-out nonperformed in the first 40 minutes of football games. Even if you believe (and I do) that Peters will perform better once he's back into shape, and even if one gives Walker the benefit of the doubt because of being flip-flopped, I think it's obvious the interior of the Bills' line is in serious need of an overhaul.

I agree with each of the points you've made. If anything, you've understated exactly how badly the offensive line has played. Lynch is averaging 3.5 yards per carry, down from 4.0 yards per carry from last year. And I doubt the median run is anywhere close to that 3.5. He's had a few big runs where he's turned the corner and broken free for big gains. However, when the Bills run between the tackles, it's pretty much a waste of a down. In addition to the pathetic run blocking, the line has also done a very poor job of pass protection, except in the 4th quarter. The absence of credible offensive line play is this team's single biggest problem. But the other things you mentioned are problems as well. The Bills need to get better with their front four. Hopefully Ellis can begin contributing later in the season, and hopefully Schobel will improve after his foot injury heals. If the need for offensive linemen wasn't so dire, I would suggest the Bills address the defensive line early in the 2009 draft. Unfortunately, the need for offensive linemen is dire, and the Bills simply can't afford to pass up good OL with their first 2 - 3 picks in the 2009 draft. I agree that the drop-off from Crowell to Ellison is bigger than we thought. Re-signing Crowell should be a high priority this off season. If we don't re-sign Crowell, the Bills will likely use a 1st or 2nd round pick on a LB, and we simply can't afford to do that right now. I'd rate our off-season priorities as follows: 1. The offensive line . . . 2. The defensive line 3. Re-sign Crowell 4. Obtain a pass catching TE 5. Extend either Greer or McGee This last thing is crucial. Unless the Bills extend one or the other of those two guys, there's a serious chance they will use a 1st round pick on a CB. The plan would be for McKelvin and the first rounder to be our starting CBs, with Youboty at nickle and Corner at dime. I do not want to see that happen. It's almost impossible to imagine the Bills doing that and adequately addressing our disaster of an offensive line. Without an offensive line, our running game comes to a halt. And it's hard to expect much from the passing game when the quarterback spends the first 40 minutes of the game on his back. By re-signing Crowell and extending one of their current starting CBs, the Bills would free up draft picks to use on the defensive line, pass catching TE, and, above all, the offensive line.

I agree with what you've written. Thus far this season, the Bills have been extremely cavalier about protecting Trent from getting hit. Now they're paying the price. Let's hope that when the 2009 draft rolls around, protecting the QB and blocking for Lynch is considered more important than drafting yet another defensive back.

Do you honestly expect anyone to believe the above when you've selected a pink tampon box labeled "poise" as your avatar?

Thanks.

What the poster in that other thread missed is that Trent has been excellent at sustaining many-play drives when he's received at least decent pass protection. But thus far this season the offensive line has typically waited until late in the 3rd quarter to provide any pass protection at all. What we've typically seen in Trent's games this season is an offense that looked completely ineffective in the first half (when the line didn't block at all), followed by an offense that looked unstoppable in the 4th quarter (when the line blocks well).