Orton's Arm

I've tentatively decided to avoid saying much about Losman for the next few weeks, until there's more information.

Substitute "I have" for "I'm" and you're on the right track.

And how many monkeys would you say your own posts are worth? If I had to go just by your username, I'd say only one.

Actually, I thought it was a well thought out article which did a good job describing the pressures of being a star NFL QB. The main premise goes far beyond football--everyone loves a rags to riches story, but once you're at the top, everyone wants to tear you down. It's a valid point. And given that Losman's in his third year of the NFL, Bills fans and the media will be increasingly less likely to give him a rookie pass, and the sometimes unfair standards starting QBs are subjected to will become increasingly relevant to Losman's life. But there's light amidst the darkness: me. I for one would never subject Losman to an unfair standard.

That's true, and as a result politicians can often be isolated from what the American people want. A European-style proportional representation system would give the American people a stronger influence over their own government. To give a concrete example: during the 1990s, neither Clinton nor the Republicans did anything to subject SUVs to the same emissions standards, auto safety standards, or gas mileage standards to which cars are subjected. Apparently pleasing automakers was more important than protecting the environment. Many Americans felt differently, but the two party system didn't give them a means of expressing this. But in a proportional representation system, people could simply increase the Green Party's share of Congress to express displeasure at other parties selling out to corporations on the environment. In the present system, if both parties sell out to corporations, it's very difficult for the American people to hold them accountable.

I'm afraid CTM made a YAC joke back on page 1, so you're a little late to the party.

Gosh Ramius, it almost sounds like you think I might have something against Losman. I'm absolutely astounded that you, or anyone else, could possibly form that impression. Have I ever written anything against him? Okay, maybe just once. Or twice. Or maybe it was a hundred times. After a while I kind of lost track. But don't be fooled by the fact that I've probably written more against Losman than any two posters combined. Deep down, it, um, (clears throat and tries to keep a straight face) never really mattered to me who the Bills' starting quarterback was, just so long as he was good. What? You don't believe me? Is there anything I could say which would persuade you otherwise? Didn't think so.

I have to admit Losman looked good today.

In other words, his performance was exactly opposite of last week's. Maybe he's trying to mix things up a little bit . . .

Amen to that! The present system is pretty good about putting the interests of corporations and special interest groups ahead of the interests of the American people and the American nation. Well, we're told, other systems are worse. But is this an excuse? It shouldn't be.

You seem like a reasonable and intelligent guy, but I'm going to take issue with this part of your post. The problem with Losman's last drive is that there were two dump-offs to McGahee in the flat. Completing those passes keeps the clock moving without gaining any real yards. It would have been far better to have thrown the ball away, or to have run out of bounds. This was a case of poor decision making, not weather-induced failure.

Leaf was released after three years, by which point it had become abundantly clear he was a bust. The Seahawks held onto Rick Mirer for four years before letting him go. I'm not sure how much more patient you wanted these organizations to have been.

I'm not so sure about that. Sometimes you'll see an ex-coach do surprisingly well against his former team. He's intimately familiar with his players' strengths and weaknesses, and that knowledge helps his team win. Granted Chicago's changed a lot since Jauron left, but there might be enough continuity to give significant help to the Bills. Will we win that game? Probably not, because Chicago has better horses. But it isn't the foregone conclusion many seem to view it as.

I agree with this. The Bills should place more emphasis on offense than defense in the 2007 draft, but we do need to draft Fletcher-Baker's replacement. If we keep Fletcher-Baker and he continues to play well, fine. The draft pick gets a year or two to learn before being thrown to the wolves.

I didn't mean to sound like the Bills were paying attention to draft status. It's more of a curiousity to see what he can or can't do, than an insistence that he'll necessarily be a good quarterback. Once the Bills acquired him, I got excited by what I learned, and looked forward to him getting the chance to prove himself on the field. It's too bad injury got in the way of that chance, but as you point out, there's no point in crying over spilt milk. You mention that Nall hasn't been overwhelming in practice, as evidenced by the fact Holcomb's ahead of him on the depth chart. The word from Green Bay fans is that Nall plays better than he practices. No, the mediocre practices aren't a good sign, but I still feel there's a chance Nall could do something special if he was put into a game. That said, I'll try not to think about possible quarterback changes these next few weeks, because you're right in saying there's little point in doing so.

Good read. I'll admit I was one of the ones who had issues with the Whitner pick: I have mixed feelings about this post. On the one hand, Mangold played well against the Bills, and Cutler's shown real promise over in Denver. On the other, I probably should have been a little less, um, firm in my insistence that Marv's strategy was flawed.

Precisely how many people in the media do you think have a sense of shame?

I've heard both views expressed: that the competition was indeed a fair one, and that the competition was rigged so that Losman would win. I don't have enough information to know if either view is correct, or if the truth lies somewhere in between. For now, I'll assume that if Nall was promised a legitimate chance at a starting spot, then that's what he was given. You may well be right in saying Marv doesn't pay very much attention to where a player was drafted. I certainly don't have any inside knowledge that would tell me one way or the other. But some fans seem to think Losman deserves first shot at the starter's position because of where he was taken; and I disagree with that view. I'm a little confused as to exactly what accusations you feel I've thrown Levy's way. Nall was promised a shot at the starting position, and indeed a quarterback competition took place. But Nall had to leave the competition for a while due to injury; and by the time he came back, Losman had established himself as the front runner. I don't see how Levy or Jauron could have acted differently, but circumstances were such that Nall didn't get the same chance to prove himself Losman had. It's a tough break for Nall, but not a sign that Levy or Jaruon failed to live up to their promises. You have a point here, in that if you insert Nall and he fails to prove himself, it would lead to a general aimlessness. But it's frustrating, because nobody knew what Kurt Warner or Tom Brady could do until they were thrown into the fire. In both cases that happened due to injury, and you hate to hope for or rely on an injury to your starter. Also, you hate to bench your starter except under extreme circumstances. So what choice does that leave you with? If Nall does very well in practice, the coaches could reward him by throwing him in for one series per game. I know it's not a usual practice, mostly because coaches don't want to see a divided locker room. With two young, developing quarterbacks, that could easily become the case. Players would argue Nall should receive more or fewer snaps, depending on his and Losman's relative performances each week. I don't really have a perfect solution for finding out more about Nall.

If I understand you correctly, you want me to arrive at the same conclusion (he won't be good) but via different means. Is that correct?

You know, for a while there you were really sounding reasonable. But the above post is a total--and I believe deliberate--distortion of what I wrote. Getting back to the YAC thing, I honestly felt that getting 38% of one's passing yards through YAC was high. It turns out that's more normal than I'd realized. Thanks to listening to others, I actually learned something. Maybe you're not here to learn anything from others; maybe you feel the need to have all the answers (or pretend to) every time you post. As for me, I'll come up with an idea, which I honestly believe to be correct, I'll throw it out there, and see if anyone can shoot it down. Maybe you're not the type of person who happens to think of a lot of new ideas, or maybe you were taught to only voice opinions which you could prove, or which many others believe. If acting that way meets your goals, fine. I'm not going to disrespect you just because you think differently than me, or want different things than I do. My goals are perhaps different, and require a different process. I seek newness, I seek deeper insight and understanding; and individual ideas are a vehicle to arrive at that understanding. As an example, I ran a regression a few weeks ago, hoping to prove a particular point about drafting offensive linemen early. The regression showed the opposite of what I'd hoped, but I posted it anyway. In this case, I was actually hoping to be shot down, but in an intellectually rigorous way which would disprove the conclusion the regression seemed to demonstrate. In the end, I wound up running a different regression, which, while it didn't disprove the first one's conclusion, at least narrowed its scope. At the end of the day, what I want is deeper insight. Part of the process of getting that involves being shot down from time to time. Yes there are jerks who rub it in my face whenever an idea gets shot down, and you know what? It's not that big a deal. It'd be better if their parents had actually taught them some manners, but that's more their problem than it is mine. What I want is to come up with new, original contributions to this board, and if I have to get shot down a few times to come up with something good, so be it. At the end of the day, people will know more, and have a better understanding of football related issues. To me, that's more important than whether I do or don't get labeled by those who like labeling.

It doesn't sound like you're accusing me of flip-flopping in this particular case, but just in general. Hey, maybe I am willing to change my mind about specific things, and some people would call that flip flopping. I'll come up with an idea, throw it out there, and see which stuff is good enough to withstand the critical scrutiny of others. If something doesn't pass that test (such as the YAC thing), I'll move on. Maybe to you that's flip flopping. But what isn't flip flopping is my stance on draft choices. You start whichever players are the best, regardless of where they were drafted. At the same time, you expect your GM to experience success in the early rounds of the draft. Ramius didn't accuse me of flip flopping because he disagrees with my style of conversation. He accuses me of anything and everything he can because criticism of Losman creates the same emotions in him that AKC experiences when he's around Pats or Dolphins fans. If you haven't grasped something as obvious as that by now, you need to be paying closer attention.

Clearly, some players just don't have the physical ability to succeed in the NFL. You're right in saying that a quarterback like that can be as accurate or as smart as he pleases, and he's not going to be the answer at QB. But if a player has that minimum toolset, the game is 90% mental. Look at Tom Brady: mediocre arm strength, zero mobility, great mental tools.

Um, no I didn't. Ramius did, and I'll get to why in a moment. I was simply amused at being accused of flip flopping and of being a brick wall within a few posts. Earlier I wrote that too few of TD's early round draft choices worked out well, and I stand by that remark. My more recent post stated that you start whichever players are the best, regardless of where you drafted them. So if your sixth round choice is better than your second rounder, you start the sixth round guy. I'm not sure how or why Ramius insisted upon seeing this as a flip flop. If, say, Jason Peters is a better right tackle than Mike Williams, shouldn't you start Jason Peters? And shouldn't you be a little concerned that the Mike Williams pick didn't work out better?

That's fair. But many other supporters of Losman seem to feel he has lots of "upside" because of his physical tools. He certainly does have more upside in the 10% of the game that's physical. Whether he has upside in the mental part of the game is another question entirely.