Orton's Arm

Agreed. Not to mention the fact they have arguably the best coaching staff in the league. The Pats* are enemy #1, and will remain as such until someone wrests the division away from them.

I was thinking the exact same thing. That sack and Lindell's FG pretty much iced the game.

I was thrilled with the way Trent Edwards played! He played like a top-10 QB who's trying to get into the top 5. We had to have good production from the QB position to win that game, and we got it. If Trent continues to play at this level, the Bills will finally have found Kelly's successor.

I'd disagree with this. I think a quarterback can learn a lot by spending time in the film room, by taking mental reps, by practicing, and in training camp and the preseason. Look at Aaron Rogers in Green Bay. He's got, what, two games' worth of experience? He sure doesn't look like a rookie to me. He's obviously learned a lot during all those years of being Favre's backup. You could say the same thing about Carson Palmer. When he first showed up with the Bengals, he looked raw. They made him their third string QB. As the year went on, he got progressively better in practice. They made him their starter beginning with his second year, and he got off to a non-rookie-like start. Trent isn't a rookie anymore. He should be evaluated in the same way you'd evaluate any other second year quarterback. I'm reasonably pleased with what I've seen of him so far this year, and I hope and expect he'll continue to improve as the year goes on.

Against the Seahawks, Trent Edwards completed 63% of his passes, averaging 7.2 yards per attempt, and achieving a QB rating of 95.8. He took only one sack, had zero interceptions, and threw a TD pass. Not bad for a guy who was a little rusty from a lack of preseason play, going up against a good Seattle defense.

If we re-sign Crowell, we can get away with ignoring the LB position entirely. As for McCargo, he played well for large portions of this year. I don't see a need to take away his roster spot if you're going to give it to some 4th round pick who's going to have a so-so career. An elite DE would be a huge addition for this defense, but DE isn't really a need position. At WR, I'd be comfortable with Evans and Parrish as the speed guys, and Hardy and Johnson as the big, physical guys. Josh Reed provides depth. That said, I could envision the following draft: 1. Mack, C 2. TE 3. OG 4. QB 5. FB 6. S 7. OL That 3rd round OG could provide depth at the three interior positions. He might eventually be able to beat out one of our OGs for a starting position. To be honest, I'm not sure what the team should do with that 3rd round pick. If you use it on a DE, you have to ask yourself how much better you think that 3rd round pick is going to be than any of the four DEs in our rotation. Ditto with DT and the four guys there (unless you've given up on McCargo). If we re-sign Crowell, then using the 3rd on a LB would just give you more depth. This team clearly has no business using a 3rd on a CB, Greer or no Greer. We're pretty much set at the starting safety positions. On offense, it's going to be hard for a 3rd round pick to break into the starting lineup. I'm already filling the C and TE positions with my first two picks. So that leaves QB (Edwards), WR (Evans, Hardy, Parrish, and Johnson), LT (Peters) LG (Dockery), OC (1st rounder), RG (Butler) and RT (Walker). I don't see a huge chance of a 3rd round pick providing a large upgrade over any of those guys. Given this situation, the Bills should pay less attention to need than usual when their third round pick comes up. Instead, they should look for a guy who might have a significantly better career than you'd normally expect from a third round pick.

Saying the Bills are "deep" at CB is probably the understatement of the year. For crying out loud, you could take guys at #4 and #5 on the CB depth chart--McKelvin and Corner--and you'd have a very credible starting CB tandem, once they were rid of their rookie mistakes. A group of CBs as deep as this has got to be a wet dream for Jauron. Has anyone ever heard of a CB group as deep as this, or even close?

Losman's dream is to be a starting quarterback in the NFL. Once his contract expires, he's going to test the free agency waters to see if anyone is willing to let him at least compete for a starting position. I get the feeling he'd strongly prefer any chance to win the starter's position--even a long shot--over no chance at all. If no one offers him that long shot, he may or may not be amenable to re-signing with the Bills. I guess part of that depends on how bitter he feels about Trent having displaced him. If Trent does well this year, maybe some of that bitterness will go away. The only real chance I see of re-signing Losman is if 1) no team in the NFL offers him the chance to compete for a starting position, and 2) the Bills offer him a significantly higher salary than any other team does. There's a modest chance of both of these things happening. For what it's worth, Hamdan played well in the preseason. If Losman leaves after the season is over, we might still be okay at backup quarterback.

I'm very happy Peters has decided to return. We need him. But I know of a certain NYC-based poster here who's even happier!

The positive thing about Losman is that he has all the physical tools one could possibly hope for: a really good arm and good mobility. The knock on him is that he processes information too slowly, which is the kiss of death as far as a quarterback's starting hopes are concerned. One would expect that flaw to be less obvious in the preseason (a vanilla offense going against a vanilla defense) than in the regular season.

Your argument hinges on the last four games of the season. Don't forget that two of those games were played in some of the worst weather in Buffalo football history. Trent's stats from those two games were horrible, as were the stats from the other teams' QBs. Fairchild's play calling hurt Edwards in those two games: there were timing routes when receivers were slipping/going slower in the snow. Edwards had nine starts last year, two of which were those games. Take away those two games, and his stats look a bit better than Losman's. That's not bad for a rookie, and I expect him to improve in his second year.

I'd be willing to cut Reed if necessary to free up a roster spot. A WR should either be big and strong (Hardy, Steve Johnson), or fast (Evans, Parrish). Reed is neither--and let's face it, he's no Wayne Chrebet.

I enjoyed, and agreed with, every word of the article.

You're a little more pessimistic about the interior of our DL than I'm prepared to be. Spencer Johnson is, IMO, an underrated player who significantly upgrades our DT rotation. I agree that Stroud is a question mark. But just as there's a chance his play will be the same as it had been the past two years, there's also a chance he'll bounce back. McCargo got off to a slow start his rookie year, but made progress last season. Hopefully that progress will continue. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be a good DT. Leon Lett had a long and successful career.

I disagree. Losing Bill Polian was a bigger mistake. As was hiring TD.

Not necessarily. If Lynch gets suspended for a few games, it might encourage Turk to pass more often than Fairchild had last year. Anything is better than Fairchild's run, run, pass mixed together with the occasional run, run, run. Secondly, Fred Jackson is a good football player; and is better as a receiving threat than Lynch. Seeing more of him on the field wouldn't be a bad thing; especially if we're going to a higher percentage of passing plays. I agree that Lynch is a huge asset for the Bills, but the Bills' offense can be effective without him. Well, at least if guys like Edwards, Hardy, Turk, and Schouman come through.

There are probably two reasons why people aren't talking more about Poz: - People assume that, once he's on the field, he'll play very well. - The Bills got reasonably good play from the overachieving John DiGiorgio. Poz is an upgrade at MLB no question, but the MLB position from the 2007 Bills probably hasn't been weighing on people's minds as a huge problem area. While Edwards got off to a promising start, he's still largely an unknown, unproven QB. A lot of Bills fans are . . . somewhat familiar with what happens when you don't get good play from the QB position; and there's a lot of hope Edwards can help put those days behind us.

In other news, backs 1 - 9 were recently hit by vehicles while attempting to cross the street.

During the first several weeks of the season, Meathead gave almost all the carries to Henry. Once McGahee became the starter, he was given almost all the carries. If the plan was to use both, the plan went awry from the very first game.

Given the Bills' situation, it made sense to sign both those players. I see two legitimate strategies here. One is to use first round picks on CBs with the idea of giving them extensions. The other is to avoid using first round picks on CBs, with the idea that CBs aren't worth top dollar. I would disagree with the idea of using a first round pick on any position, if the plan was to have that position go first contract and out.

I agree with you about this. When you think about the Bills during the Super Bowl years, the core of the team was made up of talented players who spent all--or nearly all--their careers in Buffalo. Jim Kelly, Andre Reed, Thurman Thomas, Bruce Smith, Phil Hansen, Kent Hull, Jim Ritcher. Every first round pick spent on a first contract and out type player is one less attempt to build a team's core. Building a team's core through free agency is typically difficult, because other teams are typically loathe to allow their own core players to hit free agency. The Colts are never going to let Peyton Manning walk. Orlando Pace spent his useful career with the Rams. Because it's so rare for good players to hit free agency, you typically run into two problems: with a few exceptions, even the best free agents are typically a step or two down from the best players available in the draft. Also, because good free agents are so rare, teams typically bid up the prices of those free agents to high levels. The Bills' own signing of Dockerey and Walker exemplifies both these things. As someone pointed out, the Bills overpaid for those players. Moreover, even though those were some of the best available free agents when they were signed, neither is a top-10 guy at his position. The Bills handled that situation about as well as any team could have: the fact those two players are overpaid is a function of how the free agency game is played. When you acquire your core players through the draft, there's typically a higher ceiling on the kind of player you can get. Moreover, the pay/performance ratio is typically a lot more reasonable than what one might expect from signing young, good free agents. For these reasons, I strongly disagree with any plan which involves using a first round pick on a player who's going to go first contract and out. Those first round picks are absolutely required for core players--guys who will spend their entire careers with your team.

I think I see where you're going with this. You seem to be suggesting that if the Bills hadn't cut Milloy, they could have gone into the 2006 draft without feeling like they absolutely had to have a SS. Without a gaping hole at that position, they could have afforded to trade down, even though doing so would involve some risk of losing out on Whitner. Instead, they put themselves in a position where they absolutely had to have Whitner; and ended up overspending (in terms of draft value) to get him. Is this pretty much what you're suggesting?

That point is well taken. And as someone pointed out earlier in this discussion, there's less stability than in the past. While the NFL is becoming more complex, you're seeing more changes in offensive systems, more player movement, etc. An offense is supposed to function like a well-oiled machine; and it's a lot easier to build such a machine when you have stability.

I agree that the Bills' offensive system wasn't optimal for maximizing Losman's strengths or masking his weaknesses--although there was some effort in that direction. Typically, when you have a quarterback who isn't good at processing information quickly, you keep extra guys in to block. The lack of a #3 or #4 option won't hurt this guy that much--it's not like he's looking at his #3 or #4 options anyway. But the extra time in the pocket this method provides is helpful. But the offense wasn't designed to capitalize on Losman's mobility. Losman was at his best when he rolled out of the pocket and made things happen while on the run. The Bills, apparently, didn't want an offense like that. They put Losman into a position where he'd either learn to become the pocket passer they envisioned, or else he would fail. I can't really fault that decision.

The "whoa, junior" remark was condescending, and I wasn't interested in being condescended to by someone who, almost in the same breath, announced that Melvin Fowler "is still probably an above-average NFL center." You did ask a legitimate question in that post: "Would the Bills be better overall with Mangold vs. Fowler and [insert player name] vs. Whitner? That's a much tougher question to answer." I touched on some relevant possibilities in some of my other posts in this thread; but the nature of your question is such that it cannot be answered with certainty. I went back and read your post #78. It was a good post, and I agree with it. I couldn't think of anything to add to what you'd written; and I tend to reserve my "Good post " type responses for posts that are truly outstanding. I'm open to persuasion, but it typically takes a fair amount of solid evidence or strong logical reasoning to persuade me to change an opinion. Dibs' list of players post about Whitner caused me to see the Whitner pick in a more favorable light than I had before. If you support your positions in the way Dibs supported his, I'll listen. If you try to use sarcasm or a condescending tone to make your case, I won't. Opinions should be based on logical reasoning and factual evidence; and need only be reevaluated when new logical reasoning or factual evidence is presented.