Orton's Arm

There's no real Holcomb/Losman debate going on anywhere. Holcomb is an aging player on a rebuilding team, and Losman is a bust.

What disturbs me about the housing bubble in the first place is the following: - The increase in housing prices made it harder for people to build equity in their homes, and made it very difficult to get out from under mortgage debt. - Increases in housing prices were largely caused by interest-only loans. Like SUVs, interest-only loans are an artifical means of increasing people's spending, and therefore decreasing their wealth. Due to the ill effects the housing bubble created, a return to more normal prices would help in the long run. Moreover, the interest-only loans largely responsible for creating this bubble need to go.

You could easily make an argument that such a CEO is ridiculously underpaid. Let's say the CEO of GE earns $10 million a year. Say that he's the CEO for 30 years, and brings in a cool $300 million. Now compare this to Bill Gates, a founder/owner of Microsoft. Gates put in a good 30 years into Microsoft, resulting in roughly $60 billion of stock value for himself. That's 200 times more than the hypothetical CEO brought in over the same 30 year span; despite the fact the CEO may have worked just as hard as Gates, with just as much responsibility, doing largely the same tasks. Nor is Gates an isolated example: other entrepreneurs such as Jim Clark, Larry Page, and Sergey Brin have become billionaires through their entrepreneurial efforts. If established companies such as GE are to attract the same talent that start-ups attract, the compensation needs to be competitive. I'm not saying this unequal distribution of wealth is socially healthy. It isn't. But it may be economically necessary.

I'm dumbfounded nobody has called you on this. People have the right to express their views, religious or otherwise. They have the right to try to get others to follow these views, and have had this right ever since the Bill of Rights was enacted. Those who would chip away at this freedom of expression are the ones guilty of intolerance.

Something needs to be done about social security. Of the ideas the authors presented, I feel increasing the retirement age is the best. People are living longer than ever before, so it makes sense they should retire later. The worst idea is the tax rate increase: taxes are too high already.

You make a good point here. However, I'd never remembered seeing any real author using the word poignant in the way the buffalobills.com author did. To settle this issue once and for all, I broke out The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. This book is bigger than any book has the right to be, and its physical weight seems to lend weight to its words. Its definition of the word poignant is as follows: Let's break this down: 1. Very painful or acute to the feelings. This is a far more appropriate definition than the author could have intended. 2. Strong, piercing, or keen. Clearly not the definition the buffalobills.com author intended. 3.Pointed or precise Not really a word for issues themselves, but for descriptions of issues. 4. Apt Same objection as 3). 5. Moving or arousing the emotions. I doubt this was what the author intended. Otherwise, we have, "buffalobills.com will present each of the moving, emotionally arousing issues facing the team." The most recent posting from buffalobills.com states, "While the best punt returner might prove to be Parrish, if Smith and Williams are on the roster, April is sure to have some other tricks up his sleeve to utilize them during the season." This issue is neither moving nor emotionally arousing. 6. Pungent No comment.

I was thinking of pointing out that Matt Light was a second round pick, but you beat me to it! Certainly Light alone has been worth considerably more to the New England offensive line than Gorin and Hochstein put together. Light, Mankins, etc. are good examples of building an offensive line through first day draft picks--something the Bills should be doing too.

Any post that starts like this has got to be good! I looked up New England's offensive line. Two of its projected starters did in fact arrive via free agency. Gorin was a 7th round pick for San Diego, and spent two years there (no starts) before heading to New England. Gorin has played in 31 games for New England, but has just 18 starts. Russ Hochstein was a 5th round pick for the Bucs, and spent a year with Tampa (also no starts) before heading to New England. Hochstein has appeared in 48 games for New England, but has just ten starts. The key facts to remember about Gorin and Hochstein are these: - They didn't have any starts for their original teams. These guys weren't known commodities the way Bennie Anderson, Reyes, etc. all are. - Gorin and Hochstein have mostly been backups for the Patriots anyway.

I'll grant that. The Brad Johnson/Daunte Culpepper situation is a good example of what you're describing. Johnson had years of good play in front of him, yet the Vikings felt it necessary to draft his replacement and send Johnson on his way. But when that happened, Johnson attracted the attention of other teams in need of a good quarterback. Fowler and Reyes apparently attracted little attention from other teams. If your own team isn't interested in you, and if nobody else has much interest in you either, odds are you're not a very good player. While there are certainly exceptions to this rule, I see no reason to begin with the assumption that Fowler and Reyes are such exceptions.

There's no error in describing an issue as pertinent. The error comes in when an issue is described as "astute." Someone's insight into an issue may be astute, but the issue itself cannot be. (From http://www.answers.com/astute ) In other words: buffalobills.com will present each of the shrewd, discerning, and pertinent issues facing the team or buffalobills.com will present each of the shrewd, discerning, and pertinent relevant issues facing the team Clearly the above are wrong, and should read: buffalobills.com will present shrewd, discerning, and pertinent insights into the issues facing the team.

In other words, Cleveland drafted a replacement for Fowler, and Carolina drafted a replacement for Reyes. A year or two after the replacements had been added, the original players were let go or allowed to leave. This is supposed to reassure me? It doesn't. The fact Cleveland and Carolina felt the need to draft replacements for those players tells me something. As you point out, it's possible for a player rejected by one team to find success with another. But typically, if a guy doesn't interest his own team very much, and if he doesn't attract a whole lot of attention from other teams either, it's a mistake to expect a whole lot from him. Yes there are exceptions to this rule; with Kurt Warner being the most notable. But for every Kurt Warner, there are tens or hundreds of Bennie Andersons and Trey Teagues. You point out the Giants were able to put together a decent line largely through signing Bills rejects, and giving them the good coaching of Jim McNally. That's great, but how many other times has this happened? How many other teams make it to the Super Bowl with offensive lines consisting of other teams' castoffs?

I never felt Garcia looked bad by responding. But McNabb's whole response to the situation was in an entirely different category. TO wills himself back from an injury to have over 100 receiving yards in the Super Bowl. The Eagles lose the Super Bowl, in part because McNabb got tired and took too much time in the huddle. So now TO's annoyed that McNabb's lack of conditioning may have cost him a once-in-a-lifetime chance at a Super Bowl ring TO worked so hard to get. The next year, TO created bad blood between himself and his team through that holdout silliness. There was no excuse for that behavior. On the other hand, it was done in the context of a contract dispute; however unjustified the dispute and TO's negotiating tactics may have been. Once the situation sorted itself out (as it eventually did) McNabb should have let things be. But when TO was on a sports show, he was asked whether the Eagles would be undefeated if Brett Favre was their quarterback. (McNabb had been playing badly.) TO responded to this question by saying that he had so much respect for Favre he felt the Eagles would be undefeated with him at QB. This comment got Owens suspended for a week, while the Eagles decided what further action to take. I'd bet any money that during that week, the Eagles staff asked McNabb whether he felt the breach between himself and Owens could be healed. Playing at a Hall of Fame level on Sundays, as Owens did, ought to have been an apology for far worse things than hurting McNabb's feelings. McNabb said publicly that he no longer felt TO should be on the Eagles. Later he said that had he been unfavorably compared to another black QB, TO's comments wouldn't have been nearly as big a deal to him. In essence, McNabb forced the Eagles' best player off the team because he created a racial situation out of nothing. In doing so, he significantly lessened the chances for himself and his teammates to get a Super Bowl ring. The fact that none of McNabb's teammates have spoken out in his favor speaks volumes about how he handled himself in this situation.

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to point this out.

Me too. The reasons I feel trading out of the #8 slot would have made sense are these: - The Bills could probably have taken Whitner at #15. - In a draft like this, the second or third round pick the Bills would have obtained from the trade down could have been put to very good use. - Had Whitner not been available, the player the Bills would have taken in his place could well have been at least as good as Whitner.

Anderson is a player Baltimore didn't want; while Reyes is a player Carolina didn't want. I'll wait and see which one is better. As for Fowler, I'm not going to assume that a guy who couldn't hold down a starting job in Cleveland represents an automatic upgrade over Teague. As for Peters, I'd love it if he was half the run blocker Mike Williams was in the second half of 2004. You go on to praise the Bills for using low round draft picks and second-tier free agents to build the offensive line. This is the same strategy TD used to achieve the dismal OL results in his five years here. When he did achieve OL success in the second half of 2004, it was primarily because Jennings and Williams (both first day picks) played well at the key tackle positions. You hope the free cap space the Bills will have will allow them to land a big name offensive line free agent come next off-season. How realistic is that hope? Of the players whose contracts will soon expire, many will probably be extended by their current clubs, or else will receive the franchise tag. It's rare for teams to let their best players hit free agency; and this will become more rare as the increasing salary cap allows teams to lock up their best players long-term. The few premier offensive linemen that actually hit free agency will have their choice of any number of eager suitors. This past offseason, only two top tier free agent linemen signed with new teams: Hutchinson and Bentley. Supposing there were ten teams searching for big name help along the line, any given team had only a 20% chance of succeeding. Notice also that the only big names were interior linemen, because all the good tackles were locked up by the clubs that drafted them. You point to the fact that some offensive linemen chosen early fail to work out well. While offensive linemen can turn out to be busts, the same is also true of strong safeties, defensive tackles, and players at every other position. A team that decides to only draft sure thing players will never draft anyone at all. Such a team will be reduced to signing the players other teams don't want; or at best the ones they want but can't quite fit under their salary caps. Because the Colts were paying Peyton Manning so much money, it was harder for them to extend Larry Triplett. But while the salary cap might make the Larry Tripletts and sometimes even the Steve Hutchinsons of the NFL available for free agency, you're never going to be able to add a Peyton Manning or a Matt Hasselbeck. More to the point, you're never going to be able to add Orlando Pace or Jonathan Ogden.

No it isn't. Look closely at the definition you cite: Note that the word poignant applies to descriptions or illustrations of things, not to the things themselves. In this sense it's like the word eloquent. One can write about an eloquent description of a mountain, but not about an eloquent mountain. Had the original quote promised a poignant description of Bills-related issues, it would have been correct. But this wasn't what was written:

In hindsight, Levi Jones looks like a great pick for two reasons: - He worked out exceptionally well - The 2002 draft was weak. This means two things: 1) Had the Bengals traded down and lost out on Jones, the player they would have taken instead would probably have been lousy. 2) The extra draft picks they would have gotten for trading down would have been unlikely to have helped much. For Whitner to be the next Levi Jones, he'd have to work out as well as Jones has, while at the same time the 2006 draft would have to turn out as badly as the 2002 draft did. It's possible both these things will happen, though very unlikely.

I grant there's no shame in being a backup to a Pro Bowler, as Fowler was in Minnesota. But prior to coming to Minnesota, Fowler spent three years in Cleveland. During those three years, Fowler never cemented himself as a starter, and other teams were apparently uninterested in making him the starter after those three years were over. Rummaging through Denver's dumpster produced Trey Teague. TD dove into Baltimore's dumpster, and came up with Bennie Anderson. I'm not exactly breathless with excitement about what the search through Cleveland's dumpster is likely to produce.

Whitner was taken significantly ahead of where almost all mock drafts had him going. There were those who didn't see him as a first round pick at all. How many other times has this happened? How many other players have gone significantly ahead of where mock drafts had him going? Not many, which is why Whitner would very probably have been available at #15. Nor is there anything sacred about Whitner, unless the Bills are fully convinced he'll have a significantly better career than the Plan B pick for 15th overall. But let's say there wasn't anyone the Bills liked at 15th overall. They could have traded down again, to say somewhere in the low 20s; using the resulting pick to take McCargo. This course of action would have left them with six picks on the first day of the draft, instead of the three first day picks they ended up with. With six picks on the first day of the draft, the Bills could have addressed so many needs! Two of those picks for SS and DT? Fine. But another could go towards a LDE, while the other three could be used on the offensive line.

Say the Bills traded down to #15 overall, and as you suggest three safeties were taken at that point. Why on earth should the Bills reach for the #4 safety there? They'd be much better off taking a player like Mangold, while hoping a Ko Simpson-type player falls to them in the later rounds. If the Bills were dead set on taking a safety with their very first pick, I'll admit that trading down creates the enormous risk you describe. But if they're willing to actually draft a player at some other position--as they should be--then this flexibility makes a trade down much more viable.

There are two separate issues here, which you seem to be dealing with as one: - Will your picks turn out to be busts? - Did you leave value on the table for the players you took? Obviously, the first issue strongly outweighs the second. But both are important. Suppose Marv could have gotten a second or third round pick by trading down with Denver, and still have taken Whitner. Obviously, Whitner + a 3rd round pick > Whitner alone. But if Whitner's off the board, how strong is your plan B? I believe a player such as Mangold could easily have been as big a help to the Bills as Whitner. So if you have to implement Plan B, you'll still be okay.

You and Badolbilz have had some outstanding posts in this thread, so good job to you both. You point out that the defensive system was chosen irrespective of the talent at hand, which I agree with. However, there wasn't much talent on hand to begin with. The players who didn't fit the new system tended to be older guys, and therefore irrelevant to an expansion-like team such as the Bills. I personally couldn't care less whether the defensive system is or isn't a good fit for Lawyer Milloy, Sam Adams, or Troy Vincent; and I'm only mildly interested in London Fletcher. The larger issue is the draft value the Bills gave up by taking Whitner and perhaps McCargo too early. Had the Bills been a SS and a DT away from the Super Bowl, they would have been justified in being so ridiculously specific about which two positions to draft first. The only other reasonable justification is if this proves to be a weak draft class in general, with Whitner and McCargo being rare bright spots. Given that this is unlikely, the Bills made a serious error in the 2006 draft. Let's just hope it doesn't happen again next year.

Now that was a long post, even by your lofty standards! In my original post, I listed the 2004 starter, and then afterwards listed his status for 2006. So the "too old" comment for Troy Vincent was for the Vincent of 2006, not 2004. Likewise, while Fletcher has played quite well these last few years, age is likely to catch up with him relatively soon. I wish I could share your optimism about Spikes' recovery. In his prime, Bryce Paup was a better player than Spikes. But Paup suffered a devastating injury, and was never the same player again. Then there was Sam Cowart; a guy I'd put into the same general category as Takeo. Same story: a devastating injury caused him to be a shell of his former self. As for Denny, you seem to have him lining up as a DE, a LB, and a DT. The Bills don't need a homeless player; they need good play at LDE--something neither Kelsay nor Denny have provided.

The two factors you point to are the quality of the backups and the quality of coaching (offensive line and overall offensive scheme). While these factors are important, I'm more interested in the quality of the starters. You have second-tier free agents manning the LG and C positions, a washed-up Villarrial at RG, an unproven Peters at RT, and an average at best player in Gandy. Take Reyes for example. We hear how great Carolina's line was (it wasn't), and how even a player Carolina didn't want could be a real upgrade over Bennie Anderson. Fine. Just remember a similar style of reasoning was used a few years earlier to sell us on the idea of Trey Teague. If rummaging through the Broncos' dumpster brought us Trey Teague, we shouldn't a priori expect that rummaging through the Panthers' dumpster will turn out much better.

No.