Orton's Arm

As a Bills fan, there are quite a few heartbreaking games to choose from! One that hasn't been mentioned yet is the first 2005 game against New England. It was in New England, with the Patriots coming off a bye, and all psyched over the return of Tedy Bruschi. I had that game penciled in as a loss. But the Bills played better than I expected, and kept it close. They had the ball in New England territory, and Eric Moulds had just caught a key pass for a first down. However, Moulds touched a defender's wrist as he made his cut, so the official called him for offensive pass interference. That brought up 4th and 11. A bad playcall left Holcomb with the choice to throw to the short Parrish in double coverage, or to throw to Moulds and hope he'd break enough tackles to get a first down. The Bills came so close to beating the Patriots in a game other than the Lawyer Milloy bowl. This was the second time an ill-judged pass interference call decided the outcome of a Bills/Patriots game.

Certain quarterbacks don't belong in this discussion. Roethlisberger I could sort of see, because of his poor play in the playoffs during his rookie year, and his poor play in the Super Bowl his second year. But overall, his career stats are good. His career QB rating is 98.3, and his career yards per attempt is a stellar 8.89. To put those numbers into perspective, Drew Bledsoe's career passer rating is 77.3, and his career yards per attempt is 6.64. Warner's numbers for the last two years aren't as good as Roethlisberger's. Then again, Warner wasn't surrounded by as much talent. But even playing behind makeshift lines in NY and Arizona, Warner still achieved ratings of 86.5 and 85.8 the last two years, with 7.42 and 7.23 yards per attempt. Not stellar, but significantly better than Bledsoe. For his career, Warner's QB rating is a very good 94.1, while he's averaged 8.21 yards per attempt. To put this latter number into perspective, each Warner pass attempt produced, on average, over 23% more yards than each Bledsoe pass attempt. McNabb's career passer rating is a good 84.1, but this may be a function of throwing a lot of short, high percentage passes. His career yards per attempt is 6.64; significantly worse than Roethlisberger's or Warner's.

I'd prefer 1-15 to 5-11. 1-15 gives us a chance to draft Brady Quinn if we need him, or to trade the pick away if we don't.

Track record? Track record! What track record? Are you referring to its track record in 2004 of padding its stats against weaker offenses (of which it faced plenty), but folding when it mattered most? Let's look at that 2004 defense, position by position. After each starter's name, I've listed his present status. LDE: Kelsay/Denny. Present status: Not good enough DT: Sam Adams. Gone DT: Pat Williams. Gone RDE: Aaron Schobel. Good, and still here. OLB: Jeff Posey. Not good enough MLB: London Fletcher. Good player who's getting on in years OLB: Takeo Spikes. Hopefully will fully recover from injury SS: Lawyer Milloy. Gone. FS: Troy Vincent. Too old. CB: Nate Clements. Future status/level of play uncertain CB: Terrence McGee. Good, and still here The 2004 defense was good but overrated. Of the players who made it what it was, three are gone outright, another two have questions due to age or injuries, and another two weren't that good to begin with. That leaves just four solid starters from 2004 upon whom the 2006 defense can confidently rely: Schobel, Fletcher, Clements, and McGee. Of those four, Fletcher starts to become a question mark in 2007 due to his age, while Clements becomes a real question mark because of his contract status. Obviously, things may not be as bad as this. If Clements re-signs, if Spikes fully recovers, and if Fletcher plays well at an older age, then come 2007, the Bills could have as many as five good starters from 2004. On the other hand, it could be as few as two. Either way, this defense was in need of a major infusion of talent if it was to become among the league's best, which is why the Bills' draft focused so heavily on defense.

A very, very long time!

I agree the Bills would be better off if a younger quarterback such as Nall wins the QB competition. But even supposing Nall wins, he shouldn't be expected to be as polished as Holcomb was last year.

I agree with your optimism up to a point. In the long run, the Bills are clearly better off without aging veterans such as Sam Adams, Eric Moulds, and Lawyer Milloy. I just expect that it will take this team at least the first eight games to really adjust to all the changes I mentioned, and I expect to see better play in the second half of the season than the first half. The Milloy/Whitner situation is a good example. A Whitner that knows what he's doing is probably a much better player than an aging Lawyer Milloy. But right now, he's a rookie being thrown into the fire; so I assume his mistakes will initally cancel out the upgrade in athletic ability. Then there's McCargo. I remember TD talking about how there'd been ten defensive linemen drafted before McGahee, or maybe he was describing all the DL from the first overall pick to Kelsay. Don't remember. But the point is this: of those ten defensive linemen taken early in the draft, only one made a significant contribution to his team as a rookie. Expecting McCargo to be that one in ten may be asking a little too much. In the long run the Bills are better off without Eric Moulds. But right now, we have an unproven #1 WR, and no sure thing at #2 WR either. In time this situation will probably sort itself out. But it may take Lee Evans time to learn the new offense while also learning how to be the #1 guy.

As I've predicted a 6-10 season, I guess I'm one of those who you see as having an overly negative view. I based this view on the fact the Bills will need time to adjust to a new system; rookies like McCargo and Whitner will need time to adjust to the NFL, and the fact that veteran players such as Eric Moulds and Lawyer Milloy have been lost. If a QB other than Holcomb is selected as the starter, the Bills will have to endure his growing pains. There are new faces on the offensive line, and it will take time for players like Reyes and Fowler to learn to work together. Remember how the offensive line played poorly in the first five to six games of 2004, only to gel for the second half of the year? Expect to go through that again, except without necessarily ending up with as good a line now as we had then.

The Bills need to have a clear idea in their heads as to whether they're going to match whatever offers Clements might receive. It's a pretty safe assumption that the better he plays, the higher the offers will be. So are the Bills fully and completely prepared to match these offers? If there's hesitation or doubt about the point, he should be traded. The last thing this team needs is another Antoine Winfield. As for the supposition that the Bills would receive a compensatory pick if he was signed away, that's not something they should count on at all. Apparently, the compensatory pick system is very complicated--the Donahone/Mularkey regime openly admitted to not understanding it. But roughly, the formula compares the overall value of the free agents a team has acquired, to that of those lost. If, based on draft position, salary, etc., the overall value of the subtractions is deemed higher than the additions, compensatory picks are awarded. The best possible compensatory pick is one at the end of the third round. I doubt we'll get that for Nate, because he's likely to be the only significant free agent subtraction, and because the Bills are likely to sign Triplett-like free agents which will have an offsetting effect.

Nah, I was just messing with you. You're absolutely right to place so much importance on the offensive line. I was just amused with the phrase "other positions of need" because I knew--knew exactly what part of the team you had in mind.

Gee, Bill, it almost sounds like you had a specific part of the team in mind when you wrote about "other areas of real need." The Bills could have used upgrades at OLB, TE, LDE, etc. But you know and I know that these weren't the positions you would have addressed with the three picks used on Losman. Something tells me you're less than happy about getting one thus far unsuccessful quarterback with picks that could instead have been used on three different offensive linemen!

Are you talking about the play where the WR doesn't run at all, he just stands in one place to receive the pass? Then of course the defense tackles him immediately. That's the play I feel is most overrated. I like the other kind of screen pass though; the one that's not as close to the sideline, that takes a little longer to develop, and that involves having some blockers out in front of the guy receiving the screen.

While my opinion of Lindell is a little higher than yours, I agree with the general theme of your post: upgrade if you can. But I've noticed Marv only seems interested in younger players, and that makes sense for a rebuilding team. The older kickers I've seen mentioned as potential replacements for Lindell wouldn't be a good fit for the Bills. The only way replacing Lindell makes sense is if you can find a guy who's: - About the same age as Lindell, or younger - An upgrade at kicker - Proven in bad weather conditions - Willing to sign a cap-friendly deal to play for the Bills I just don't know of any guy out there like that.

JP played essentially half a season. During that time, he had 31 rushing attempts, 15 completions of over 20 yards, and 6 completions of over 40 yards. Multiplying those numbers by 2 to extrapolate his path for the entire season, you've got 62 rushing attempts, 30 completions of over 20 yards, and 12 completions of over 40 yards. Compare these numbers to Jake Plummer and Peyton Manning: adjusted Losman: 62 rushes, 30 completions (20+), 12 completions (40+) Jake Plummer: 46 rushes, 44 completions (20+), 8 completions (40+) Peyton Manning: 33 rushes, 45 completions (20+), 6 completions (40+) Bear in mind that it's easier for teams like the Broncos or the Colts to call 40+ yard pass plays, because they actually have offensive lines. A 40+ yard pass could well play to both of Losman's strengths: first he'd use his speed to roll out and avoid the pressure, then he'd use his good long ball to complete the pass to Evans in one-on-one coverage.

I see where you're coming from. I too would get annoyed by someone acting as though Losman cost us two first rounders. I didn't mean to come across as though I felt any sort of agreement for that view.

I agree with the heart of your post, which is that you know greatness when you see it. Elway had that greatness. He also had a career yards-per-attempt of 7.1; placing him significantly ahead of Bledsoe and Holcomb in this crucial area. If a quarterback looks mediocre in terms of quarterback rating, yards per attempt, and his play on the field--as Bledsoe does--there's no reason to include him in a Hall of Fame discussion.

I agree golf's not a sport. But track--I've run track myself. It hurts to practice, and it hurts to race. Your lungs feel like they're on fire, and your legs feel like they're made of lead. There's no way something which puts you through this much pain is some stupid "pastime." It's a sport, pure and simple. Go out and run a lap around the track in 75 seconds or less. It's not easy, and many people can't run that fast at all. An average high schooler would have a hard time breaking 80 seconds, and would be out of breath and exhausted by the end. Once you have a clear idea in your head as to what a 75 second pace is like, I want you to think of this: a five minute mile represents four 75 second laps, back-to-back. Condition your body to be able to run a five minute mile, and then come back and tell me how track's not a sport. Phiddipedes won the first marathon, and died immediately afterward. Others have died in subsequent marathons. Long distance running has killed far more people than football. Running, if done well, isn't supposed to kill you. But it's supposed to come close, and that's why it hurts as much as it does.

You're probably right, and that's too bad. I really want Ralph to have a Super Bowl ring before he dies, but he won't be getting one in 2006. If there's any element at all of sacrificing the long-term for the short-term--and I believe there is--it will lessen Ralph's chances of getting that ring in the future.

I'm not exactly awed by Bledsoe's level of play, but not even I would go nearly so far as this. The reason Bledsoe doesn't belong in the Hall of Fame is there just isn't enough of a legacy. Barring the first half of 2002, his play for the Bills has been mediocre. Bledsoe has added very little to his legacy after leaving New England. So let's look at that New England legacy. Kelly Holcomb has averaged 6.67 yards per attempt over the course of his career. If you're going to look like a Hall of Famer, you should be able to do better than Holcomb, right? 7 yards per attempt seems like a pretty good indicator of where a quarterback should be if he's one of the best. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady both have career averages of over 7 yards per attempt. In New England, Bledsoe only broke 7 yards per attempt three times--in 1997 through 1999. His career yards per attempt is a pedestrian 6.64--slightly lower than Kelly Holcomb's, and significantly lower than Manning's or Brady's. Bledsoe also deserves credit for the 1994 season because of all those yards he threw for. So we're talking about a potential Hall of Fame induction for a guy who's had four good years for the Patriots, and half a good year each for the Bills and the Cowboys. That's five years of play in which he looked like a guy who belongs in a Hall of Fame discussion, compared to eight years of looking like a very ordinary quarterback.

Yes, there's overlap. I'm willing to grant that some of Bledsoe's early years are better than they seem due to subsequent rules changes that made it easier to pass. Take the five yard bump rule, which they started enforcing a while back. Before that, it was a lot harder to complete passes. All or almost all of Elway's passing stats were complied before that change went into effect, while most of Bledsoe's career has taken place after that rules change. Comparing the passer ratings of quarterbacks playing by different rules is apples to oranges. Bledsoe had some good years early in his career. But other than his half season flashes in the pan for Buffalo and Dallas, he hasn't been able to achieve a QB rating of 80 since 1998. Rob Johnson's career average is above 80, and that's with a similar, deep ball-oriented style of play. You seem to see a parallel between Elway and Bledsoe. But you could make a very strong case that the Bills would have won more games in 2004 with Holcomb under center, than they did with Bledsoe. In contrast, there are no grounds whatsoever upon which to believe the Broncos could possibly have won as many games with a Holcomb-like quarterback, than they would have won with Elway.

Ha! I guessed right about you having a specific quarterback in mind. I agree Elway belongs in the Hall of Fame. But the passing rules were a lot less friendly back then, so a rating of 79 back then might be the same as a rating of 85 or so today. Moreover, Elway typically wasn't surrounded with good talent, so that puts downward pressure on his rating. I also remember Elway being known more for the long bomb than the Walsh Coast short, high percentage passes. Obviously that high risk, high reward style of offense hurts his completion percentage, and therefore his passer rating. Maybe getting rid of completion percentage entirely--or at least minimizing its importance--would be a positive change to the passer rating system. Look at yards per pass attempt, TD passes, and INTs. Obviously, though, there's no comparison between Elway and Drew. Elway would be the only guy keeping otherwise untalented teams alive. On his arm alone his teams would get 7 to 9 wins a year, even when everything else seemed to be falling apart. For most of his career, Drew was never remotely as critical to his teams' success.

Obviously, you have the power to read people's minds, because that's the only way you could possibly claim that I was being deliberately misleading. I'm sorry you feel you have to stoop to this level to defend Losman. This is beneath you, Ramius. To say the Bills traded away a first round pick to acquire Losman isn't an insult to his accuracy, or his ability to see the field quickly, or any other critical factor. It's just an observation that the Cowboys acquired the Bills' 2005 first round pick (among other picks) via trade, and that the Bills in return acquired Losman. You're being awfully defensive here.

I have the feeling you've got a specific quarterback in mind with a rating of 79. But I'm too lazy to look up whichever one it might be. If it's an older era quarterback, the 79 rating wouldn't be a disqualifier, because the rules were a lot less passing-friendly back then. If it's a modern era guy, one who's still playing, then no, a guy with a rating of 79 probably shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame.

I really shouldn't be responding to this post, but it gets under my skin when people imply I've been misleading. In the late 1990s, the Bills gave up their first round pick (and a 4th rounder), and in return got Johnson. Because the first round pick wasn't actually used to draft Johnson, this counts as trading away a first round pick for him. Later on, the Bills gave up a first round pick in 2005 (plus a second and fifth in 2004) for Losman. Because their own 2005 first rounder wasn't actually used to draft Losman, this again counts as trading away a first round pick to get a guy. I was merely implying that both players cost us first rounders, and that both players required trades to acquire.

I'll grant you this. Under some circumstances, Bledsoe played with greatness. Those eight games are a good example, as are his first eight games with Dallas. He also had some excellent play early in his career. But his overall track record isn't one of great, or even very good play. It's one of mediocre play. No modern era quarterback with a rating as low as his belongs in a Hall of Fame discussion.