Orton's Arm

The mistakes you've described are the result of a lack of discipline. Some years the quarterback prospects are better than others, both in the draft and in free agency. If you decide you want the best available quarterback right now, you might end up signing a Billy Joe Hobart, or trading away a first round pick for a declining veteran. A better general manager would be more patient, focusing his scarce first round draft picks on whichever players could offer the most long-term potential to the team. He'd know that eventually, a good quarterback prospect would come along in the draft, or would be available in free agency. Take Kurt Warner. After having been released by the Rams, Warner has never averaged fewer than 7.23 yards per pass attempt, nor a qb rating lower than 85.8. Does that make Warner a more productive quarterback than Bledsoe at this stage of his career? Absolutely. I'm not aware of any Warner-like quarterbacks who were available in 2002. On the other hand, if your team goes 3-13, there are many problems beyond just quarterback. If the right answer isn't available at quarterback--which it may not have been--you take the disciplined approach by using your draft choices on problems which you can solve now. You wait for later before making a major investment in the quarterback position, when a quarterback worthy of such an investment shows up.

For most of his career, Doug Flutie was unable to be a starter for an NFL team. Do you feel this fact invalidates his stats when he finally did become a starter?

I've seen pictures of Mike Williams back when he was in college, and he was a lot more lean and muscular looking than he's since become. That said, I agree that you don't pick a right tackle 4th overall. So there's some truth to your implication that TD should have been able to avoid the Mike Williams bust. Bledsoe's been around the league a long time, which is why he's one of the all-time leaders in yardage. But the fact Bledsoe was producing more than Holcomb back in 1993 doesn't mean he was a more productive quarterback than Holcomb for the Buffalo Bills. You know who ranks ahead of Bledsoe on that all-time yardage chart? Vinny Testaverde. You don't see any GMs trading away first round picks for a washed-up Testaverde, do you? Nobody was that stupid. Nor were any GMs dumb enough to offer up a first round pick for a Bledsoe whose best days were behind him. No GMs that is, except one. Bledsoe has a big name. I'll give him that. But he no longer has the big-time production to go along with that name. Compare Bledsoe to Peyton Manning. Manning has a career yards per attempt of 7.66, and a career passer rating of 93.5. Bledsoe's career yards per attempt is 6.64, and his career passer rating is 77.3. Do you think these stats are misleading? I sure don't--they point to a real difference in the quality of the two quarterbacks. If Bledsoe had more to offer the Bills than Holcomb did, you'd expect to see that difference in the stats. The career yardage stats you cited do show that overall, Bledsoe has had a more distinguished career than has Holcomb. If you can produce at level X for 13 years, you've done more than a player who produces at level X for just a few years. But even though Bledsoe had earned the bigger name over the course of his long career, it doesn't mean he was a more productive quarterback for the Bills than was Holcomb. Had it not been for that blown pass interference call on Eric Moulds, Kelly Holcomb would probably have led the Bills to a win over the New England Patriots, in their own stadium, in a game not involving Milloy-based emotional disruption. Could you honestly envision Bledsoe doing the same thing? I can't. The vision that comes to my head is a Bledsoe on the sidelines with utter sadness and defeat written all over his face. The Holcomb/Bledsoe stats I cited earlier aren't misleading--they point to the fact Holcomb gave us at least as good a chance to beat the Patriots as Bledsoe did. And if you can beat the Patriots, you can beat anyone.

Every GM will have first round busts, so I'm not going to be too harsh about the Mike Williams pick. In my eyes, the real problem with TD was his decision to use 8 picks in the first two rounds on offensive skill position players, while using just one such pick on the offensive line. Your opinion of Bledsoe at this stage of his career is significantly higher than mine. Bledsoe's career passer rating is 77.3, as opposed to 79.9 for Kelly Holcomb. The usual objection to this is that passer rating puts too much emphasis on completion percentage, which helps a dump-off quarterback like Holcomb more than a downfield passer like Bledsoe. Fine. Let's look at yards per pass attempt instead. For his career, Bledsoe has averaged 6.64 yards per pass attempt, as compared to 6.67 yards per attempt for Kelly Holcomb. During his years with the Bills, Bledsoe averaged 6.58 yards per pass attempt, as opposed to 6.56 yards per attempt for Holcomb with the Bills. The difference is that Holcomb never played behind Jennings or Tucker. Yes he played behind Mike Williams, Chris Villarrial, and Trey Teague, but all three of those guys were significantly hampered by injuries. If Bledsoe can only provide you with Holcomb-like production (and under much better circumstances than the ones Holcomb faced), why not just sign a Kelly Holcomb and save yourself a first round draft pick? The fact that draft pick went to the New England Patriots only made a bad situation worse.

On the other hand, you wrote the following (a non-Cliff's notes quote) Let me get this straight: TD traded away a first round pick for a quarterback who could only give the team a few short years. Moreover, you can't really expect more from said quarterback than to "be adequate and good a few times." This long-term value-challenged quarterback went to a rebuilding team incapable of achieving anything meaningful over the short term. This deal wasn't a wash in football terms. It was an absolute disaster that set the team back significantly. When TD got here, the Bills had too few young, talented players, and too many overpaid, underperforming veterans. When he left, there wasn't much young talent here, and the Bills had too many overpaid, underperforming veterans. The short-term thinking implicit in the Bledsoe deal is a major reason why TD failed to build a significantly better foundation than the one Butler had left him.

Since 2001, Antowain Smith has rushed for 3949 yards and a 3.9 yards per carry average. Travis Henry rushed for 4184 yards over the past five years, and a 4.0 yards per carry average. Travis Henry had 808 receiving yards the past five years, as opposed to 742 receiving yards for Antowain Smith. In his 1024 carries the last five years, Antowain Smith had 11 fumbles, including 9 lost. In his 1051 carries the last five years, Travis Henry had 25 fumbles, including 14 lost. Not only was Antowain Smith better at holding onto the football, he was better at blitz pickup. Overall, Antowain Smith has contributed at least as much to his teams over the past five years as Travis Henry has. This is why the Travis Henry pick should have been invested in the offensive line instead.

This wasn't just a case of 20/20 hindsight. I opposed the Bledsoe deal before it happened. I admit I had a change of heart during the first half of 2002 when the Bills were winning all those games. But ultimately, my before-the-fact instincts proved to be correct. You don't exactly have to be a genius to figure out a 3-13 team shouldn't trade away a first round pick for a guy whose best days are behind him.

I don't know why I agree to this, but here goes:

If the Bills could get at least a 5th round pick for him, I'd be happy with a trade. This team should be worried about more than just this year, and it has bigger problems than the #3 QB spot.

What I was getting at is that, given the Bills' need for a quarterback, I don't have a problem with the general concept of using a high draft pick to get one. My problems with the Losman pick aren't germaine to this discussion, and in any case they have nothing to do with the general concept of taking a quarterback in the first round. It made no sense for the Bills to trade for Bledsoe. TD had basically gutted the roster he'd inherited from Butler; including young players like Antowain Smith and Travares Tillman who would go on to be productive elsewhere. As a result of this gutting, the Bills went 3-13 in 2001. Why would a 3-13 team see the need to trade away a first round pick for a "now" player like Bledsoe? Bledsoe takes significantly longer to read the field than Tom Brady. Without an offensive line, how much long-term success could TD realistically have expected Bledsoe to have had? Bledsoe was close enough to the twilight of his career, and his game was flawed enough, that nobody else wanted to trade a quarterback for him. Think about that. There had to have been teams which were quite good, except for the absence of a good quarterback. If you thought you were a player away from a chance at the Super Bowl, it might well make sense to trade away a first round pick for a short-term but very good answer. Obviously, nobody felt that way about Bledsoe. And if the GM of a 3-13 team felt he was a player away from the chance at a Super Bowl, he was dreaming.

Good. I like talking about TD. In particular, I like examining TD's failure to build a good offensive line. During his five years in Buffalo, TD used eight picks in the first two rounds of the draft on offensive skill position players: 2001: Travis Henry (2nd round) 2002: Josh Reed (2nd round) 2003: Drew Bledsoe (1st round pick traded away) 2003: Willis McGahee (1st round) 2004: Lee Evans (1st round) 2004: JP Losman (2nd round) 2005: JP Losman (1st round) 2005: Roscoe Parrish (2nd round) During that same timespan, he used just one pick in the first two rounds on an offensive lineman: 2002: Mike Williams (1st round) Does this drafting record make sense? TD was handed a roster that included offensive skill position players like Eric Moulds and Antowain Smith. But other than a declining Ruben Brown, there weren't any offensive linemen who provided the team with much of anything when TD took over. When you have some good, long-term offensive skill position players already, but no offensive linemen, why create an 8:1 ratio for early round skill position players to offensive linemen? I'm okay with making some investment in offensive skill position players. TD needed a quarterback, and I wouldn't have minded him using an early draft pick on a young one. But I take issue with his strategy of investing heavily in the #2 and #3 WR positions, and in trying to find an upgrade for Antowain Smith, while at the same time sharply limiting his investment in the offensive line. In addition, I question why he waited until 2004 to draft his QB of the future, when Rob Johnson was released after 2001.

Just make sure OJ doesn't love you back, or you'll end up with your throat sliced open.

The Bills are a rebuilding team, so a younger player like Nall makes more sense than an older guy like Holcomb. Royal did a good run after the catch on the screen pass to which you're referring.

My own favorite play was obviously the 70 pass play by Nall. My second favorite play was also a Nall play--the one where Nall completed a pass he had absolutely no business throwing. You remember, the one where he had that defender draped on his shoulders, that he threw while getting hauled down. My least favorite play was also a Nall play--the one where he again attempted a pass while getting hauled down. That second time, he had one defender going after his lower legs, and another on his shoulders. For obvious reasons, that pass attempt resulted in an interception.

Which passing plays did you like the most, and which ones did you like the least?

Mmmmph. Let's see if he actually earns that starting position, or just gets it through default/seniority. But you're right, I need to keep an eye on this.

Losman: 5-5, 52 yards, 0 TD/0 INT Holcomb: 4-4, 81 yards, 0 TD/0 INT Nall: 7-11, 119 yards, 1 TD/1 INT With Buffalo's quarterbacks playing like this, you have to give credit to the quarterback coaches in general, and Alex Van Pelt in particular.

I predicted the Bills would go 6-10; so I don't know if you'd count me as a doom and gloomer or not. But if Nall steps in for an injured or ineffective Losman and carries the team to an 11-5 record, nobody could be happier than me. Well . . . maybe Nall would be happier, considering a season like that would put millions in his pocket, it would bring him unlimited women (assuming he's single), and he'd be the one actually playing professional football instead of watching it like me. Man it would be nice to be in his shoes. But other than Nall and a few other people, nobody could be happier than me.

The point Dibs made is that in general, you'd expect early round success stories to correlate with winning games. The fact I've shown that early round offensive line success stories correlate with winning games may therefore be irrelevant. In other words, Dibs is saying I've answered the wrong question. This may or may not be true, and I'll probably have to do another regression on, for example, linebackers to see if Dibs' objections are valid. If the same correlations I observed for first day starting linemen also exist for first day starting linebackers, Dibs is correct in saying that I've discovered men like to have sex. If Dibs focused on the big picture of whether I've asked the right question, you have focused a little more on which sampling techniques I should be using, whether I should be throwing out outliers, and other details about the methodology. But before you can even begin discussing methodology, you have to figure out exactly what question it is you want answered, and why. My methodology was correct if the question you're interested in is, "Do teams which fill their offensive line starting slots via the first day of the draft tend to win more games?" You suggest meaningful performance evaluations be given to each lineman. What question are you hoping to answer by doing so? The success rates of the various rounds are already known. In regression part 2, I showed that having first day picks as starting OL correlates strongly with wins. In part 1, I sort of showed that merely picking offensive linemen early does not correlate with wins. The next question worth asking is whether using the first day of the draft to fill a non-OL position (such as linebacker) correlates with winning.

You argue your case eloquently, and that bit about the quarterbacks was especially convincing. Let me mull this over . . .

There's a technical term for the factors you've described in this paragraph: noise. There's also a signal: the fact that the average ninth grader is better than the average seventh grader. Given a large enough sample, the signal can usually penetrate the noise; even without any attempts at noise correction. In fact, misguided attempts to correct for noise can actually interfere with proper random sampling technique. I'm not saying that's an issue with the study you've suggested. But other studies obtained flawed results by trying to obtain balanced samples with fixed percentages of specific demographic groups, instead of just taking a nice, random sample like they should have been doing.

Now this post is a clear case of congruence between a man's words and his avatar!

The analysis you've suggested looks interesting, and I wish you the best in conducting it. As for why I did my analysis the way I did it, I'll offer the following analogy. Suppose you had several basketball teams consisting of seventh graders. Then one day, you decided to allow ninth graders to join these teams. Some of the seventh grade teams got as few as zero ninth graders, while others got as many as four. If the ninth graders tended to be better than the seventh graders, you'd expect to see a correlation between the number of ninth graders on a team and that team's number of wins. Without attempting to measure the performance of any ninth grader in particular, you could still conclude (correctly) that in general, adding ninth graders to your team would tend to increase the number of wins. Likewise, obtaining your starting offensive linemen through first day picks tends to increase your team's number of wins.

You seem like a very logical thinker, and part of me wants to agree with what you're writing here. But there are other factors to consider: 1. It's true teams draft for need, especially in the early rounds. Well, most teams anyway. TD drafted Travis Henry when he had Antowain Smith but no OL . . . well nevermind. Most teams do in fact draft for need. But while you're adding new talent on the offensive line via the early rounds of the draft, you may be losing an equal level of talent due to players getting old or hurt. Look at the decline the Bills' defense experienced in just one year's time. In any case, the first day draft choice offensive linemen I looked at had often been with their teams a number of years. I can see how plugging a good player into a hole would get you an extra win or two early on. But if a guy's been with his team eight or ten years, he's not just plugging a hole. He's a piece of a long-term strategy to build an offensive line through the early rounds of the draft. 2. One of the key factors in having a good offensive line is that thing women talk so much about--chemistry. Guys who stay together for long periods of time develop better chemistry than players on offensive lines which keep changing. If you obtain your offensive linemen through the draft, you can keep them with your team their whole careers. On the other hand, teams which build their lines through free agency could find it more difficult to have consistency. Free agent Chris Villarrial only gave the Bills one good year, and he'll soon need to be replaced. Trey Teague was in and out over just a few years. On the other hand, early round draft choices like Ruben Brown and John Fina spent nearly their whole careers here.

Ultimately, I'm looking at the effect individual linemen have on their teams' success. If obtaining a starting lineman via a first day pick is helpful to a team's winning, then the one ought to be correlated with the other. And so we find. My definition of a successful offensive lineman is someone who helps his team win. I object to using winning percentages to evaluate specific players--I hate hearing that QB so-and-so is 41-10 as a starter. QB so-and-so's team was 41-10 while that particular QB happened to be on the field. Maybe QB so-and-so is Trent Dilfer; a very average player benefiting from the excellent performance of those around him. While winning percentage can't be used to evaluate individual players, it can be used to evaluate general trends or strategies. In general, eighth graders tend to be tall than seventh graders (with many individual exceptions to this rule). In general, teams which obtain their starting offensive lines via first day draft choices win more games than teams which use other means to build their lines (again with many exceptions).