Orton's Arm

How many roads must a man walk down Before they call him a man? And how many corners must one man draft Before they call him Jauron? The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind The answer is blowing in the wind

Hopefully that will change by the end of the Seahawks game. It's up to Butler to go out there and manhandle Triplett.

That was a great post. One of the best I've ever seen on these boards. Thanks.

The first CB taken in the draft went to the Bills. The last CB taken in the draft went to the Bills. If Jauron had had his druthers, all the CBs taken in between would have gone to the Bills.

Thanks for the working link.

Chris Ellis (the Bills' third round pick) has the potential to make a significant contribution to the defense. Taking him was a calculated risk; but if it pays off, he should noticeably strengthen the Bills' pass rush. The Corner pick puzzles me: the Bills would have had a strong set of dime CBs even without him: McKelvin, McGee, Greer, and James. James is 6'0", 200 pounds, and is in his 8th year in the league--maybe they're thinking of moving him to safety; with Corner becoming the dime back. Whatever their plans might be, the Corner pick looks like it was intended for depth. Typically, picks in the 4th - 7th rounds contribute very little to a team's roster, and leave/are released after a few years (if that). The Bills have lost significant special teams talent. They probably decided it made more sense to try and succeed at restocking the special teams players with the rounds 4 - 7 picks, as opposed to trying and failing to find starter-quality players. Besides that, there seem to have been a few attempts to find "sleeper" picks in the later rounds, such as WR Steve Johnson (7th round).

I thought the same thing. Roscoe's speed gives an added element of danger to the offense; whether it be on a trick play, or by creating a mismatch with a #3 or #4 CB. He's also dangerous as a return man, and every punt he returns is one less opportunity for McGee or McKelvin to get injured or fatigued. On the other hand, Reed is a short, slow, unproductive WR. If Steve Johnson makes the roster, I expect Reed to go.

Even if Stroud gets put on IR for the year, I still feel the Bills will be tougher against the run than was the case last year. Key additions to the run defense include Spencer Johnson, Mitchell, and the return of Poz. The defense didn't lose any starting-quality players; or even quality backups (other than the Hargrove suspension). At least on paper, the Bills have improved their ability to stop the run and the pass, even without Marcus Stroud.

I think that Leodis McKelvin will be as good as, or better than, you'd expect from the #11 overall pick. Hopefully, the Bills will extend him; rather than letting him walk after his first contract is over.

After a successful draft, I think the front office owes itself a nice dinner at Jauron's favorite restaurant.

My head, it has three corners Three corners has my head And if it had three corners It would not be my head

As I've mentioned before the draft, the Bills were two solid drafts away from filling all their needs. I've heard that this isn't the world's strongest draft class. It's possible this draft is step 1 of a two year plan. Going into the draft, their needs were at #2 WR, C, TE, DE, CB, FB, and depth/special teams. Needs that have been addressed: CB, #2 WR, DE, depth/special teams Needs for next year: TE, C, possibly FB Chris Ellis at DE is a calculated risk; but arguably one worth taking. He should receive a significant amount of playing time on defense; and has the potential to materially help our ability to rush the passer. Fine and Bowen provide depth at the TE and LB positions respectively. Their ability to make the final roster is probably contingent on how well they play special teams. Getting good special teams players is more important than a lot of people may realize; and the Bills have lost some talent on special teams these past two years. If the players in this year's draft live up to their potential, then next year the only real needs should be at C and TE (possibly FB depending on what the Bills to the rest of today). In 2009, the Bills could take a C and a TE in the first two rounds, and a FB in the 3rd or 4th round. Things could work out quite well, especially if the centers and TEs that will be available next year will be better than the ones the Bills could have had this year.

Apparently he was being serious. Far more serious than anyone had realized!

That's a good line--much nicer than hearing people whine.

That's really annoying.

Five years from now, it won't seem to make sense to pay McKelvin the money necessary to keep him.

This is basically the same group that let Clements walk.

5 first round CBs in the last 15 drafts? No wonder why this team has had so many holes--CB is like an open wound that causes us to bleed first round picks. When Leodis' name was announced, I thought to myself, here is a guy who will make a solid contribution to the Bills for the next 5 years (6 if we're lucky) and then jump to some other team. I would be happy about this pick if I thought there was at least some chance we'd extend this guy. But we won't.

That's one of the reasons I wanted Sweed . . . no major pitfalls in terms of character. Also, I've heard better things about Sweed's work ethic. But Hardy is a Bill and Sweed isn't, so I'll try my best to root for him.

I was really hoping for Sweed

If the Bills traded down and took Limas Sweed, I'd be a happy man. Compare Sweed's bio with Hardy's: Hardy: Sweed: Of the two players, Sweed seems to offer more positives, and fewer negatives, than does Hardy. Physically, the two players are very similar--there's 0.01 second difference between their respective 40 times, and Sweed is 6'4" to Hardy's 6'5". One of the things I like most about Sweed is his work ethic. They say that Jerry Rice worked harder than you'd expect from an undrafted rookie free agent trying to make the final roster. Nobody's saying Sweed is going to be the next Jerry Rice, but having a very strong work ethic can't hurt his chances in the NFL!

Erik Flowers also did well at the combine.

DRC did amazingly well in the senior bowl and in the combine, but other than that he doesn't have much to show for himself. The college production just hasn't been there. An NFL talent evaluator described him as a "bust waiting to happen." Not only that, but any first round CB the Bills choose should be considered a "first contract and out" type player. This organization does not extend its first round CBs. I'm against taking a first round CB in general, and DRC in particular.

When you build a good offensive unit, it can often remain effective for many years. You get a QB who's used to throwing to a particular group of receivers, you get an offensive line with the same five guys year after year, you keep the same offensive coordinator/philosophy in place, and suddenly you start to develop some chemistry and effectiveness. It could be that good teams built their offense early, and their defense later on. Take the Colts. They used first round picks on Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Tarik Glenn, Edgerrin James, Anthony Gonzalez, and Joseph Addai. But a lot of those picks were from a while ago; whereas many of the Colts' defenders were taken more recently. On one side of the ball, you have Peyton Manning throwing to Marvin Harrison and Reggie Wayne (all first round picks taken on or before 2001), and on the other side of the ball, you have Dwight Freeney rushing the passer, Mike Doss and Bob Sanders playing safety, Marlin Jackson, Kelvin Hayden, and Tim Jennings in the secondary (all first and second round picks taken in or after 2002). Typically, Super Bowl winners are very strong on both sides of the ball. Moreover, you almost never see a core group of players reach multiple Super Bowls unless there's a QB playing at or near a Hall of Fame level. Team: '70s Steelers QB: Terry Bradshaw (played like a Hall of Famer in the postseason, although not in the regular season) Team: '80s 49ers QB: Joe Montana Team: '80s Broncoes QB: John Elway Team: early '90s Bills QB: Jim Kelly Team: '90s Cowboys QB: Troy Aikman Team: '90s Broncoes QB: John Elway Team: 2000s Patr*ots QB: Tom Brady If you need a QB like that to reach multiple Super Bowls--and the record indicates that you do--it stands to reason that you should surround said QB with the supporting cast he needs to be effective. It's hard for a QB to complete passes when he's lying on his back; or when his receivers drop passes they should have caught. The above teams generally provided a very good supporting cast for their QBs.

You are correct about correlation/causation. A correlation between A and B can exist for any of the four reasons: 1) A causes B, 2) B causes A, 3) C causes A and B, 4) coincidence. With a large enough sample size, statistical tools can be used to reduce the probability of #4 to where it can safely be ignored. Nothing in the above paragraph necessarily dooms all statistically-based efforts to analyze draft patterns. A while back, I looked at the composition of each team's starting offensive line. Each starting offensive lineman a team had acquired with a first round pick was correlated with two additional wins. Each starting offensive lineman a team had acquired with a second round pick was correlated with 0.5 of an additional win. What do those correlations mean? There are several possible explanations: 1) Coincidence is always possible, even though what I found was statistically significant at a 95% confidence level. 2) Using a first round pick to successfully fill any position of need probably correlates with more wins. 3) The teams with the most draft picks on their lines might be better/more successful at building through the draft in general. 4) It might make sense to use high draft picks to build your offensive line. Can statistical tools shed light on which of these explanations is correct? Indeed they can. Had I been feeling more motivated, I would have run this same kind of labor-intensive comparison for a few other comparison positions--LB, DB, etc. If the same correlation existed for those other positions, explanations 2 or 3 are most likely correct. If the correlation was weaker or non-existent for those other positions, explanations 1 or 4 are most likely true. Supposing, for the sake of argument, that explanation 4 is true, what would it mean in terms of how teams should be run? Certainly it wouldn't provide teams with any "formula" to determine an ideal course of action. At most, it would inform teams that, given a choice between drafting two players of roughly equal caliber, they should choose the offensive lineman over a LB or DB. (This assumes, of course, that the players in question are at positions of need.) As you have noted, the data AKC has gathered do not prove anything in the statistical sense. But those data provide an interesting basis for discussion. For example, the Bills have spent heavily (in terms of draft picks) on the RB position; while ignoring the TE position in the first two rounds of the draft. To me, that datum is indicative of TD's short-sightedness and desire for a quick fix. He used a 2nd round pick on Travis Henry, even though he already had Antowain Smith. A more far-sighted man might have used the pick on some other position--such as OL--rather than trying to achieve immediate gratification at the RB position. I'll agree with you, with one qualification. It's important to draft good players, and to keep them on your team for the duration of their careers. "First contract and out" isn't a very effective way to build a winning franchise.