Orton's Arm

Ouch. 50 net passing yards a game. Is it really worth it to have all those puny WRs and QBs and pass catching TEs out on the field just for that? Get rid of them! Replace every last one with big, ugly, mean men. Or build a real passing offense. Because what we're doing now ain't cutting it.

I don't see how school choice would result in segregation, unless black parents chose to send their children to different schools than the ones white children went to. Some black parents might decide to make this choice, for the same reasons that some blacks choose to attend historically black colleges. But that choice rightfully belongs in the hands of black parents, and shouldn't be up to some bureaucrat who thinks he or she knows best. You other objection would seem to have more merit, in that there's the chance good schools would be flooded with new students. However, if they're good schools in the first place, they'll be wise enough to know their own limitations. They'll realize how much they can hope to usefully expand in a given year, they'll set the number of enrollment slots accordingly. Over time, the best schools will expand their enrollments; so fewer and fewer children will be turned away. There will be one exception to this: schools targeted at specific groups, such as the gifted, or special needs children, or children of a specific religious affiliation. Schools like that shouldn't try to become general purpose, because they would lose the things that make them unique.

Based on the way it's been playing lately, the offensive line doesn't have the right to take offense to any choice of words.

See? You're making my case for me. Our receivers are "struggling to get separation," so why not separate them from the field?

Hey, I never said this was the right offense, just that it'd be an improvement over the offense I've been watching lately. Which, by the way, isn't saying much.

I think the direct snap to Reed resulted in three yards or something. Not too bad, considering. But in the offense I described, nobody would be on the field, unless he weighed at least 250 pounds. Well, I guess you could keep whatever running backs you have that are lighter than that. But mostly, you're trying to take advantage of the fact that there are only so many big men on the other team's defensive roster. If your guys are bigger and stronger, hopefully you can push them backwards a few yards each play. Say for example you were going up against a Ted Washington type of player. You'd use the 5/4 offensive line formation I described earlier, and you'd run the ball away from Ted. You'd keep running it away from him, until he got tired. Then you'd ram it down his throat. Again, I'm not suggesting the Bills actually implement this offense, but it'd sure be better than whatever on earth they're trying to do right now.

You evidently missed the cynical tone of my post.

Right now, we're barely calling any pass plays, and the plays we have called have gotten us about 100 passing yards a game the past two weeks. So why have a passing offense at all? Why not just get rid of the QB and replace him with a RB? Get rid of the puny WRs, and replace them with FBs and extra offensive linemen? Why not run the ball every single play? We're pretty close to doing that anyway. But right now when we run, the QB just stands there; neither blocking nor running. Going to an all-running offense gives yourself one extra player on running plays. Imagine an offense that did literally nothing but run the ball. One of your formations could have five linemen in the middle, and another four over to one side. Your, um "quarterback" (actually a running back) would line up behind center, and there'd be another RB lining up behind the four extra offensive linemen. How many teams have enough good defensive linemen to stop nine offensive linemen at once? How long would defenses hold out against the physical pounding your team would deliver? Another offensive set would consist of seven massive men up front, with a RB and a bunch of blocking FBs in the backfield. This offensive set would be designed to punish the defense. Wear 'em down. Never again would you have to use a high round draft pick on some QB or WR. All those extra picks could feed your defense or your offensive line. A mauling-type OL who didn't know beans about pass protection could have success in this style of offense. So could a blocking TE who couldn't catch passes. I'm not saying this would be an ideal offense. But last week's offense put up about 200 yards against Indy, and was responsible for six points. Do you think a running-only offense would be less productive than that? Well, you say, what about the fact that the threat of our passing game wouldn't be there any more? Well, is that "threat" really there now? I mean, how many defensive coordinators do you think are losing sleep over the fact that the Bills' passing game has put up 100 yards a game the last two weeks? Do you honestly think people are defending the Buffalo pass first, and the run second? Ha! Would a running-only offense actually work? I have no idea. But I like the idea of a running-only offense a lot more than I like the Bills' offense as it is right now. My suggestion couldn't possibly make things worse, and might make them better.

Maybe Gibbs thinks Campbell can be the next Tony Romo.

You are right, Mr. T was putting the entire blame for all the offense's problems squarely on Losman alone. His statement that, "I know the OL is bad" didn't mean anything.

How would you know if there was a problem?

I agree the Hasselbeck and Nall situations aren't exactly parallel. That said, Nall's season in NFL Europe was very similar to Kurt Warner's. Kurt Warner, by the way, wouldn't have seen the field for the Rams had Trent Green not gone down with an injury. Sometimes guys get written off too quickly, and with too little data. It's not that the coaches are stupid, it's just that there's only so much playing time to be given out. Now take a guy like Losman. Coming out of college he was considered "raw." "Raw" is another way of saying that he'd done little to prove himself as a pocket passer; a QB who can intelligently pick apart defenses like a Tom Brady or a Peyton Manning. With the way the plays are being called right now, he isn't being given an opportunity to prove whether he has the decision-making ability of a Brady or a Manning. He's barely being given the chance to show flashes of such an ability. I agree the coaches are probably going to pursue the patient approach you suggest, at least for the 2007 season. The Bills' first round pick will likely be used on a CB to replace Nate Clements. The QB position will once again be a question mark, and fans will again be left to wonder how many of the passing game's problems are due to poor pass protection, and how many are due to inept quarterback play. We'll invest another year in a QB who's done very little, either at the college or pro level, to show that he has the decision making ability that's absolutely essential to be a complete NFL quarterback. Suppose the offensive line is mildly improved come next season. Suppose further that Losman looks a little better then than he does now. How good does the pass protection need to be before we start expecting Losman to look like Brady--or at least like Romo? At what point do we decide that the time we're investing in Losman's development could be better spent on developing a player like Brady Quinn? It's one thing to invest a lot of time developing a player like Drew Brees. Brees had proven himself a successful pocket passer in college, and eventually became one in the NFL. Losman is being treated with as much patience as Brees received, without having done nearly as much to earn such patience. Of the many consequences of Levy's decision to neglect the offensive line going into this season, one is that it becomes harder to evaluate Losman's ability as a pocket passer. Maybe the Bills' staff doesn't feel the same sense of urgency to evaluate Losman that I feel. I don't understand the reasons for this complacency, but I feel it's a mistake.

Neither did my graduate level stats classes. There are some things you need to learn on your own.

I'm sorry. Were you talking about Hasselbeck or Nall?

I have to admit that I too am more curious about Nall than about Losman.

I voted to unleash him. The Bills need to use the remaining games to decide whether to take a quarterback early in next year's draft. That's an easier decision to make if you've given Losman the maximum opportunity to show what he can or can't do.

According to the logic of your post, it was a good idea to draft Antoine Winfield, and another good idea to avoid offering him an extension. I strongly disagree with that logic. Consider a team which decides to follow your advice with respect to CBs. Every four years, they draft a new CB to replace the guy who left. (This should sound familiar to Bills fans.) They'll need four first round picks to obtain 16 years of good CB play. Compare that to using first round picks on quarterbacks. I realize there are a lot of QB busts in the first round. But you also have guys like Carson Palmer and Jim Kelly. Say you need to work your way through three QB busts to get to a Jim Kelly. Kelly's career lasted 13 years. So which would you rather have for your four first round draft picks--16 years of Nate Clements-type play, or 13 years of Jim Kelly play? If it was up to me, I'd take Jim Kelly. I'd also take a bunch of offensive linemen, and keep them in Buffalo their whole careers. You need continuity at QB, at OL, and at the receiving positions. Build those things first, before you get on the cornerback treadmill you've described.

There's that, then there's the 7 points the defense scored. The Colts' offense was held to ten net points. Then you figure in the fact that special teams created a field goal opportunity because of the good McGee runback, and all the offense had to do for the whole game was score seven points. Ten points, if you figure Indy could have gotten a FG at the end. Is 7 - 10 points really too much to ask from your offense when you play the Indianapolis Colts?

My first choice for the Bills' pick would have been to take a quarterback like Cutler or Leinart. If upon close inspection I didn't like what I saw from those two, my second choice would be to trade down and take an offensive lineman like Mangold. And don't tell me how great an offensive lineman Fowler is, or that we didn't need a Mangold. That's like saying the Bills didn't need a strong safety, because they'd signed Matt Bowen. The Bills need to build the offensive line. Bargain basement free agents haven't worked. Aging free agents haven't worked. Low-round draft picks haven't worked. At some point, you have to start using first day draft picks on offensive linemen. I'd be perfectly happy if the Bills draft a quarterback with their first round pick in 2007, a right tackle with their second round pick, and an offensive guard with their third rounder. If they use their 4th round pick on another OG, so be it.

I picked them to finish last. Miami seems to have truly improved, and the Jets look to have a decent team this year. The Bills have a defense and a special teams unit, but it's tough to win with only 2/3 of a football team.

That's why her brother Alex decided to become a quarterback instead of a kicker.

I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. You've been accused of being wishy washy, because your views about Losman have apparently changed. I've been called stubborn, because my views about Losman have remained more or less the same. Someone will throw accusations your way almost no matter what. At some point, you have to stop worrying about what other people think or don't think. Just tell the truth as you see it, and listen when others do the same.

I've got nothing against Alex Van Pelt, whom I think is a great guy, a hard worker, smart, and someone who wasn't blessed with the talent to be a starting-quality quarterback. I'd say that football is 40% offense, 40% defense, and 20% special teams. Of the 40% that's offense, maybe 15 percentage points are your running game, and 25% is your passing game. Of the 25% that's your passing game, 1/3 goes to your offensive line, 1/3 to your receiving corps, and 1/3 to your QB. So your quarterback makes up about 8% of whether you win or lose. Hey, use different numbers if you want, and get 16%. Even 20%--these numbers are very subjective. But subjective or not, there's no way a QB deserves anything remotely close to 100% of the credit for a win, or the blame for a loss. I agree Flutie made the offense look good in 1998, just as Bledsoe did in the first half of 2002. But the defense carried the team in 1999.

This is a relatively young football team. An aging player like McNair wouldn't be a good fit. The QB position would fall apart just as the younger players started hitting their stride. Okay, you say, well what about a guy who's a little younger like Drew Brees? The problem there is that Drew Brees style free agents are few and far between. Typically, if a team has a QB who's in his prime, and if he's good, there's no way they're letting him hit free agency. The only type of free agent QB you'll see is someone with baggage. Maybe he'll be too old like McNair or Bledsoe, maybe there'll be questions about his play (Harrington, Culpepper), or there will be injury concerns (Brees). There will always be something wrong with the guy, sometimes multiple somethings. If the Bills can sign the next Drew Brees, great. But if they can't, and if nobody on the roster steps up between now and the end of the season, the Bills need to start thinking about what they're going to do in the draft.

The Bills were 21-9 as a team while Flutie happened to be starting. A lot of those wins took place despite Flutie, and not because of him. Flutie played well for a while. But once defenses figured him out, that was it. He definitely deserves to be lumped into the same category as Bledsoe (had success in the first half of 2002 until defenses figured him out) or Rob Johnson (had some good games here and there, but defenses figured out you beat him down with the blitz). Look at what Flutie achieved once he went to San Diego.