Orton's Arm

You missed Bill's point. On the one hand, the Bills use a lot of first round picks on defensive backs. On the other, those defensive backs seldom remain here beyond their first contracts. Nate Clements may be a good case in point, as was Antoine Winfield. The Bills have been dumping too many high round draft picks into their secondary, while at the same time neglecting the offensive line. The link you provided does nothing to refute anything Bill's been saying. On the contrary, Bill made it very clear he's quite happy with the second day of the Bills' most recent draft.

You still don't understand the articles about regression toward the mean to which I linked, do you? You're still intent on ridiculing a concept described by Stanford, the University of Chicago, Duke, Berkeley, the University of Washington, the EPA, Tufts, and even Ohio State. Yet you insist on looking down on other people's intelligence.

Interesting. I'm being called an idiot by someone who doesn't use capitalization, doesn't use apostrophes, and can't even spell "idiocy."

Surviving is one thing, working is another. So yes, modern democracy will probably survive unless threatened by some major crisis like the ones you described. But will it produce useful results, along whichever of the dimensions I mentioned that you think are important? Can modern democracies be expected to produce fiscally responsible results, or do a good job at resisting social parasites? As for protecting the gene pool, some people may feel it's unimportant, or that it's not the government's responsibility. If, however, you see a strong gene pool as a critical puzzle piece in building a strong nation, do you think a democracy is likely to do a good job of protecting it?

You honestly don't see a connection between draft value and football players? The Bills had the 8th overall pick in the draft. They used it to get Whitner. Instead they could have had Mangold (who looks like he'll be a better player than Whitner) plus a second round pick (who could have been another good football player).

Well . . . yes and no. Suppose two exceptionally attractive people were to have kids. Their kids would also expected to be very good looking, but not quite to the same extent as their parents.

Here are a few possible scenarios for the Bills' draft: Option 1: build a killer defense - Round 1: MLB - Round 2: DT - Round 3: CB (if Clements walks), otherwise DE - Rounds 4 - 7 offense & defensive depth Option 2: build a killer offense - Round 1: TE or #2 WR - Round 2: RB - Round 3: OG - Rounds 4 - 7 defense & offensive depth Option 3: build the trenches - Round 1: DT - Round 2: OG - Round 3: OG - Rounds 4 - 7: offensive skill positions and defensive back 7 Option 4: Hybrid of the above - Round 1: MLB - Round 2: #2 WR or TE - Round 3: OG - Rounds 4 - 7 everything else Just about any of these scenarios would be a perfectly legitimate way to approach the draft. The Bills have so many needs, they're free to take the best player available at very many positions.

Your post about the changing role of the safety rings true. And yes, that does make me feel a little better about the Whitner pick. I'm still not thrilled with the pick mind you, and I won't be unless Whitner begins to receive serious Pro Bowl consideration. But I agree it's not the end of the world.

I understand your point about the importance of a sound system for player identification, and I that such a system is instrumental in building a good football team. I don't know if you've read Patriot Reign, but according to that book, the Patriots' system for player identification was instrumental to their success. But you can have such a system without necessarily getting too locked into one or two specific players. Generally it's a mistake to be too eager, to get too locked into plan A instead of considering what plan B might have to offer. Had Marv elected to trade down, he could well have still been in a position to take Whitner. But had Whitner been off the boards, would Mangold plus a second round pick have been such a tragedy? If Marv's system of player identification told him that Whitner and McCargo were the only two players worth having in the first round, his system is far too narrow. A good system should give you a viable plan B and C so that you don't get burned. The way I see the Whitner pick, it's like completing a 15 yard pass when you had a guy 30 or 40 yards down the field who was wide open. And yes, you're welcome to say something like, "Well in that case, a guy named Holcomb's Arm should love the Whitner pick."

Hey, maybe Whitner will elevate his play to an Ed Reed level. I really hope you're right to imply there's a good chance of this. But Whitner almost has to be the next Ed Reed--or pretty close--to justify that kind of selection. It's very, very hard for a SS to be a game changer, which is why I'm pessimistic about Whitner being a good value at #8 overall. I just want the Bills to have a lot more game changers and difference makers than we have right now. I'm not trying to be a pain, honest. And no, I'm not saying the pick was garbage. It wasn't, because the Bills clearly got something of value from it. But they could have gotten more.

For what it's worth, Sportsline has Whitner rated as the 148th best DB in the NFL. Interestingly, Ko Simpson was the 63rd best DB (according to them), and Nate Clements the 18th best DB. But what's really, really frustrating is the #2 DB on that list.

That's some pretty funny imagery. Hmmm . . . I'm trying to imagine myself as a brilliant but eccentric (and somewhat psychotic) mathematical genius like John Nash. I assure you there's a big difference between what John Nash did (which was amazing) and what I did in that post (which is fairly common). Let's say someone offered you $1.00 if a coin came up heads, but nothing if it came up tails. The expected value of that coin flip is (50% * $1.00) + (50% * $0.00) = $0.50. Nothing brilliant there, and that's all I did in that earlier post. The way I figure things, the Bills really need to win the Super Bowl. To do that, all your starters need to be solid football players. But a few of them here and there need to be more than solid--they need to be bona fide difference makers. I'll give Marv credit for doing an exceptional job of finding solid football players on the second day of the draft. But I think he could have done more to find real difference makers on the first day. Maybe a few years from now it will turn out that the Whitners and McCargos of this draft really are Pro Bowl material, or nearly so. But right now things seem a little disappointing.

No. Suppose the Bills call up Bill Polian, and ask to trade for Peyton Manning. We begin by offering Whitner. Do you think we'd be more than halfway toward offering them enough value for Polian to make the trade? I don't. On the other hand, I have to admit the sliding scale you used is better than the three category scale I'd used earlier. Maybe I'm downplaying Whitner because I don't see SS as being as important a position as some others on the field. Or maybe it's that I was really high on the Mangold option (both before and after the draft), and now it turns out Mangold is already among the league's best centers. It would have been so nice to finally have a replacement for Kent Hull (plus that second rounder). Instead we have a SS who looks like he'll be a solid starter, but nothing special. When I see Whitner, I see a glass that is a) half-empty, and b) could easily have been full. You seem to see Whitner as a glass that's a) half-full, and b) could easily have been empty. I think that if you have the #8 overall pick, and very few difference makers on the team, you need to at least try to come away with more than just a glass that's half full.

I tend to think of morality as existing in multiple layers. The bottom layer is the willingness to sacrifice one's own selfish interests to help the larger whole--much like individual ants do with respect to their colonies. People who are missing this bottom layer will find it difficult or impossible to truly embrace the higher, uniquely human layers of morality. Government legislation can't take a group of fundamentally selfish people and make them moral. On the other hand, it's possible for misguided actions to make people less moral, by taking away their opportunity to become part of something larger than themselves. What defines moral behavior? Anything which helps the nation as a whole will generally be moral; and anything which hurts it will generally be immoral. This type of basic morality should guide our thinking about the environment, immigration policy, and other important issues. But what about issues like pornography, gay marriages, prayers in schools, that sort of thing? When it comes to things like that, it's a tight balance between one man's freedom to do as he pleases, and another man's freedom to live in a decent environment. If the guy down the street watches a porn video in his own home, it doesn't infringe on any of my freedoms. But if that same guy puts a pornographic billboard on his front lawn, he directly infringes on the right of families to raise their children in a decent environment.

Let's say a great player--a difference maker--is worth 500 points. A competent player is only worth 100 points, because he's not going to be that much of an improvement over the Melvin Fowler or Matt Bowen you could have signed in free agency. Now I'll do the math: Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (20% * 500) + (30% * 100) = 130 + second round pick Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115 Time will tell how many of the players in the top 15 or top 20 of that draft will have become elite difference makers. 20% seems a little low, so let's rerun the numbers assuming 35% of those players become difference makers: Option 1, expected value: (50% * 0) + (35% * 500) + (15% * 100) = 190 + second round pick Option 2, expected value: (25% * 0) + (10% * 500) + (65% * 100) = 115

Thanks for the well thought-out post. I'd like to add a few things though: it's true the majority can oppress certain minorities, but it's also possible, indeed common, for minorities to oppress the majority. Consider the parasitic way many special interest groups act, and the types of laws these special interest groups are able to have passed. My own thoughts about morality are somewhere between yours and Simon's. On the one hand, America must not become rootless; and Christian-inspired morality is part of this country's heritage. On the other hand, morality can exist in the absence of religion. Cats, for example, seem to know hunting rats is acceptable, but hunting rat-sized kittens is not. The ancient Romans had concepts of honor, courage, and self-sacrifice, which existed long before their conversion to Christianity, and seemingly independently of whatever pagan religions they practiced. The existence of Roman morality was instrumental in the rise of the Roman Republic; and its dissolution was largely responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire. I'd argue something similar is at the root of the success of ant colonies: individual ants are perfectly willing to sacrifice their own lives for the good of the colony. Like people, ants are able to achieve far more in strongly unified groups than they possibly could as selfish individuals.

That's fair. But I think many fans saw Whitner as a low risk/low reward proposition--sort of like putting your money in a savings account. There wasn't much potential for disaster, but neither was there much potential for greatness. On the other hand, many first round players are more like small cap stocks. Sure, there's the chance you'll get hurt on any one stock you buy. But you have to weigh that against the fact that other small cap stocks will have a very high level of return. Take quarterback for example. A few years back, Indianapolis took Peyton Manning; and San Diego took Ryan Leaf. Let's say Peyton Manning is worth 500 points, and Ryan Leaf is worth 0. Donte Whitner is worth 100 points, maybe 125. Whitner may be an above-median player considering his draft slot. But being above-median doesn't make him above average.

My own feelings were similar. The way I saw things, there were five very good non-QBs in that draft: Reggie Bush, Mario Williams, D'Brickashaw Ferguson, A.J. Hawk, and Vernon Davis. If the big three QBs were taken in the top seven, then one of those five non-QBs had to fall to us. I'd have been happy if we'd sat there at #8 and had taken a Vernon Davis or an A.J. Hawk. On the other hand, if the top-5 non-QBs were off the board when we picked, and if Marv had decided he didn't want to draft a QB in the first, I strongly felt he should trade down. I'd have been perfectly happy had Marv gotten Denver's second round pick plus Nick Mangold.

Yes, the real embarrassment to the Bills organization and the city of Buffalo is this thread and not anything McGahee may have said or done.

According to Dr. Z's grading system, Mangold and Jeff Saturday were tied for the third-best year among the NFL's centers.

I'd like to discuss the type of results modern democracies produce in the real world. To get things started, ask yourself to evaluate democracies in general along the following dimensions: For each thing on the list, ask yourself first should the government be doing something about it, and if so, what kind of a job do democracies generally do? - Environmental policy (Excellent, good, average, poor, terrible) - Fiscal responsibility - Immigration policy (is the government doing what's best for the country?) - Resistance to social parasites (think: frivolous lawsuits, some welfare recipients, etc.) - Protection of morality - Protection of the gene pool - Protection of big businesses' right to fairly compete - Protection of small businesses' right to fairly compete - Providing basic social services - Protecting individual liberties

There's a difference of degrees, yes. But the point I was making is that there absolutely has to be a line somewhere. It's just a question of where. If Chiniqua Smith's saying stuff like that, it's pretty reasonable to conclude McGahee isn't exactly a candidate for the dad of the year award.

Inevitably, someone in Saddam's position will have many enemies. These enemies will have been tempted to make as many accusations against him as possible; whether true or false. In a postwar environment, tempers will flare due to the blood that's been shed. The enemies of the old regime will be eager to find opportunities to discredit it. Under those circumstances, it's tempting for those conducting trials to allow questionable accusations to be accepted as cold, hard fact. I don't know the extent (if any) to which this has happened in Hussein's trial. But the possibility of false accusations being made during or after a war is something of which we should all be aware. Consider the fact that the U.S. entered and fought WWI based largely on false atrocity accusations leveled against the Germans. (Hence, the strongly isolationist mood that pervaded this country after WWI was over.) I'm not saying the Iraq war is another WWI, where we were misled into war based on false propaganda about enemy atrocities. But I am saying that it's in the interest of the Bush administration and Hussein's other enemies to make Hussein look as bad as possible. For that reason, the trials should be looked at very closely, instead of being accepted without critical scrutiny.

Let's say that Mangold is half a notch down from the best centers in the league, while Whitner's a full notch lower than the Ed Reeds of the NFL. To me, that makes Mangold a better football player than Whitner--at least at this point in their careers. I'd argue that Mevlin Fowler is to center what Matt Bowen is to strong safety. Either player is good enough to get you by, but not good enough that you'd seek them out as permanent starters.

Those who disagreed with me made a number of silly claims. The anti-Darwinistic implication was one of them. Currently, relatively unintelligent people are having more children than smart people. I feel reversing this situation would improve the quality of the gene pool; and our nation's long-term future. Others argued that changing these childbearing patterns would produce no long-term improvement in average intelligence levels. They pointed out that if people with very high I.Q.s have children, those children will, on average, be smart, but not quite so smart as their parents. Likewise, if two exceptionally stupid people have kids, the kids are also expected to be stupid, but not as stupid as their parents. Based on these two facts, those who disagreed with me concluded current childbearing patterns aren't a source of concern; nor could an altered childbearing pattern be a source of hope. Either way, the thinking went, the nation's gene pool with respect to intelligence will remain the same over the long run. If this logic is correct, it would undermine the basis for Darwinism. I'm not aware of any trait that's 100% narrow-sense heritable; so all or nearly all characteristics experience the regression toward the mean I've described.