Orton's Arm

Ummm . . . "junior"? "Fowler . . . is still probably an above-average NFL center"? Okay then! Moving on . . .

Back when Whitner was taken, you expressed the view that the Bills should have traded down and drafted Mangold instead. Thus far, you appear to have been right on the money with that one. Mangold is among the league's best centers; whereas I'm not aware of anyone describing Whitner as among the league's best SSs. Mangold would have been a better football player, taken later in the draft, and at a position of dire need. You made the right call there. I'm a little more ambivalent about the McKelvin pick, because he appears to have been the best player available when we were picking. My main concern is whether he'll remain with us once his first contract expires. The best I'm hoping for here is for him to be signed to a 6 year deal, franchised in year 7, and lost in year 8.

I think your comments go too far. Was the article perfectly expressed? No. But there's a lot of truth to what he's written. The author is correct to assert that the Walsh philosophy of using the pass to build an early lead can be very effective. Because the rules have become more passing friendly, the right mix between passing and running has changed. On the other hand, if a team is good at running the ball, it should play to that strength. It's no longer correct to conclude, as some do, that you should use the run to set up the pass. That may still be a sound idea for some teams, but is probably no longer the best plan for most teams. I think the point he's getting at is that, as the league has become more passing friendly, a CB can no longer shut down a WR the way that elite CBs could 20 or 30 years ago. I also agree with his implication that you're better off having a great pass rush, and mediocre DBs, than you are with a mediocre pass rush and great DBs. I agree that he oversimplified the FG situation. I think what he was getting at is that missed FGs and turnovers are similar, because they both (presumably) involve someone on your team messing up, and they both imply that your chance to score points on that particular drive just got snuffed out. I agree with your implication that it would be a mistake for teams to respond to this by decreasing their FG attempts, and punting more often instead. As you pointed out, you're probably better off trying for the long FG, than having your punting team get a few extra yards of field position. But I don't think that's where he was going with this. His point, IMO, was that a good FG kicker is important, because he'll turn some of those missed FGs into successful FGs, and thus reduce your "turnovers."

I can't believe that someone decided to take a perfectly good thread about the Pats* cheating, and turn it into a forum for sarcastic comments about Edwards. Amazing.

Let's wait until he starts scoring TDs before going too far down this road.

That may well be why this staff has emphasized DBs so strongly. The first and second round picks that haven't been spent on DBs have generally been spent on other "immediate impact" positions, such as RB and LB. Positions that take a longer time for a player to develop--such as OL--have been filled via free agency. Now that the TD-era players have been by and large replaced, it's time for the staff to start using high draft picks on players, such as OL, who play at positions which take longer to learn. The Bills lack a starting quality center; and to be honest I wouldn't mind seeing Langston Walker replaced by someone who's better at run blocking.

On the Jets forums, they call him "Sperm" Edwards.

If memory serves, that particular turnstile's name was Greg Jerman.

You'd give up a 2nd for a guy who's 34 years old?! And you'd do that as GM of a team that is not one player away from a serious Super Bowl run?! Just for the record, look at the 2nd round picks for the New England NFL franchise. 2001: Matt Light, T 2002: Deion Branch, WR 2003: Eugene Wilson, FS 2004: Marquise Hill, DE (bust) 2005: no 2nd round pick Out of four guys taken in the 2nd round, two are still with the team, and another got traded away for a 1st round pick. Do you honestly believe New England would have been better off losing out on the entire career of a Matt Light or a Eugene Wilson, in order to get a year or two out of a washed up DE?

.

To be honest, I'd forgotten about all those blitzes until you and Ramius reminded me of them. Not that those blitzes are something I like being reminded of. But I remember now. The standard-issue play was for some blitzing Jets defender to get to the QB untouched, on practically every pass play. As a Bills fan, I'm something of a connoisseur of bad pass protection, and that was some of the worst I've ever seen. The quality of pass protection got better as the game went on. Maybe the main factor causing the improvement was the Jets choosing to blitz less often. Or maybe the main factor was the Bills doing a better job of blitz pickup. The Jets defenders getting tired might have been a secondary factor. In most football games, it's easier to score points in the 4th quarter (when the defense is tired) than in the 1st quarter.

I think a lot of teams blitz rookie quarterbacks to see if they can handle it. Last year, Trent's overall body of work in responding to pass pressure was better than you'd expect from a rookie. But there's still room for improvement in his game; and this season represents an opportunity for him to show that improvement.

Earlier in the thread, you implied you're capable of having a two-way conversation about Losman. And maybe you can--at least with those who see things the same way you do.

In the first half of that game, there simply wasn't any pass protection. None. As the game wore on, the Jets' defenders seemed to tire a little bit, allowing the Bills' QB more time to throw. I felt the offensive resurgence had more to do with the improvement in pass protection later in the game, than with anything that happened at the quarterback position.

The reason why the Bills have so few first round picks from that era is because of TD's unwillingness or inability to build a long-term core. Look what he did with his first round picks: 2001: Nate Clements. A good football player whom TD allowed to go first contract and out. TD could have avoided drafting a CB by extending Antoine Winfield. 2002: Mike Williams. Bust. 2003 a: traded for Drew Bledsoe. Released after three years. 2003 b: Willis McGahee. Drafted to replace Travis Henry, who'd been taken just two years earlier. TD seemed to like spending high draft picks on players who wouldn't last very long, either because of first contract and out, or because of the position they played. 2004 a: Lee Evans. The lone TD first round pick who's a starter for this team 2004 b: Losman. Bust. 2005: no first round pick So there you have it. Two first round picks used on busts, two more used on short-term good only players (Bledsoe and McGahee), one used on a first contract and out CB; and just one used on a (hopefully) long-term answer at starter (Lee Evans). Compare all that to the New England Patr*ots. 2001: Richard Seymour, DT 2002: Daniel Graham, TE (bust) 2003: Ty Warren, DE 2004 a: Vince Wilfork, NT 2004 b: Benjamin Watson, TE 2005: Logan Mankins, G All those guys except for Daniel Graham are still on New England's roster; and most of them are very solid starters or even Pro Bowl level players. That's the way first round picks should be used--to build a long-term core of solid football players.

The Bills should not give up a first round draft pick for a DE who will be turning 34 this September. Doing that would be an even bigger mistake than the Bledsoe trade.

You have a good point. No matter how good your front office is, there's always going to be a chance of drafting the next Mike Williams or Erik Flowers. When you do draft the right guy, it's very important you keep him with your team well beyond just his first contract.

Hey! Wait a minute! I thought I had the market for that kind of humor pretty much cornered! Thanks, by the way, to everyone who complimented me.

Are you, perhaps, trying to imply that I didn't do any better than some kid working at the corner store would have done?

Excellent! Your post is the exact opposite of cowering in some corner.

If you're going to use an emoticon, why not one that involves looking at someone out of the corner of your eye?

Article by: John Doe On the Monday morning after the draft, I drove to the corner of Abbot and Bills Drive to interview Jauron. Instead of taking me into his office, he sat down with me in a quiet corner. Interviewer: Could you touch on the Bills' plans for Toronto? Jauron: We just want to keep our options open, rather than painting ourselves into a corner. Interviewer: Describe the preparation that goes into the draft. Jauron: We send scouts to the four corners of the earth to search for football talent. Interviewer: How soon before some of those draft picks become regular contributors on offense and defense? Jauron: Big days from our draft picks are just around the corner. Interviewer: What's the one thing you look for the most in a draft pick? Jauron: When you talk to him, does he look you in the eye, or do his eyes wander to every corner of the room? Everything else is secondary. Interviewer: You've gone 7-9 in each of the previous two seasons in Buffalo. How do you think you'll do this year? Jauron: I think we'll turn the corner. Interviewer: The Dolphins have improved themselves in the off-season. How do you think you'll do against them? Jauron: We've got them backed into a corner. (The corners of his mouth curved upward in a smile when he said this.) Interviewer: Describe your relationship with Bills' fans. Jauron: I'm glad they're in our corner. Interviewer: Head coaches get paid pretty well, and it must be nice to be able to afford any car you want. What's the single most important feature you look for in a car? Jauron: How well it handles corners. Interviewer: Your attention seems to be focused on a particular position. Would you care to elaborate on that? Jauron: No. Interviewer: Why not? Jauron: Because I'd feel like I was cornered. Interviewer: What's your least favorite shape? Jauron: The circle. Interviewer: Why? Jauron: Because a circle doesn't have any . . . oh, never mind.

When TD made the Nate Clements selection, he already had Antoine Winfield on the roster. Drafting Clements allowed TD to receive good CB play while letting Winfield (a former 1st round pick) go first contract and out. Clements' first contract also expired under TD; although Marv got another year out of him by slapping the franchise tag on him. The point I'm getting at with all of this is that the expectation for a first round pick should be for him to give your team 10 or 12 solid years of play. When he only delivers half of that--as, for example, through a first contract and out situation--you're only getting half the value of that pick. As a general rule, the core of most Super Bowl teams was obtained via the draft. Building a core of talented players is hard to do when your plan is to have your first round pick go first contract and out. If McKelvin gets an extension, that tells me the strategy was to use a high draft pick on a long-term, core member of the team. If he hits free agency, that tells me this is just another instance of the team using a first round pick on a 1st round, first contract and out CB, at the expense of building that solid, long-term core.

You're welcome. Now we just have to keep our fingers crossed with respect to two things: 1. Will McKelvin be given an extension, or allowed to walk after his first contract is over? 2. Will Hardy and Ellis work out? If both those things go the Bills' way, this will have been a very successful draft indeed.

thanks