Orton's Arm

Personally, I believe Nall has a much better chance of developing into something special than does JP.

It may show Losman went deeper on average. On the other hand, it may also show that Losman missed more short passes than Holcomb did, thereby inflating his yards per completion average. Probably it's some combination of the two.

Not a bad post at all. As for the very interesting stat Mickey provided, I couldn't think of anything to add to it. A stat like that speaks for itself.

Say that a quarterback is fortunate enough to be throwing to receivers who are good at running after the catch. Given equal levels of play, this quarterback's yards per attempt is going to look better than that of some other quarterback whose receivers don't run well after the catch. The point isn't really applicable to a Holcomb/Losman discussion though, because both quarterbacks were throwing to the same receiving corps.

Wrong. You can't inflate a yards per attempt stat simply by having more attempts. If player A uses 10 attempts to pass for 100 yards, and player B uses 100 attempts to pass for 1000 yards, both players will have the same 10 yards per attempt. Yards per attempt is a much better indicator of a quarterback's yardage production than yardage per completion. Let's say quarterback A completes a 5 yard pass and a 50 yard pass. Quarterback B fails to complete the 5 yard pass, but still completes the 50 yarder. Quarterback A will have 27.5 yards per completion, as opposed to 50 yards per completion for quarterback B. In other words, the yards per completion stat rewards quarterbacks who miss short passes. Quarterback A will have a slightly higher yards per attempt, correctly indicating he's producing slightly more yards than quarterback B. Any system of measurement which rewards a quarterback for missing short passes--as yards per completion does--is bound to make Losman appear to be better than he really is.

Just this once, I'll write a post disagreeing with your take on Losman. Your first point seems to be that Holcomb achieved his higher completion percentage by always going for the short, safe pass, while Losman attempted more low percentage long bombs. However, Holcomb averaged 6.56 yards per pass attempt in 2005, while Losman averaged just 5.88 yards per pass attempt. For what it's worth, Nall has averaged 9.52 yards per pass attempt in limited play. Secondly, you say that Holcomb was the recipient of much higher quality playcalling than was Losman. But Mularkey has had some experience in making bad quarterbacks look good, as his work with Kordell Stewart and Maddox illustrates. Holcomb also had a much better year under Mularkey than he averaged at Cleveland. Perhaps Mularkey was competent with Stewart, Maddox, and Holcomb, but incompetent with Losman. A different explanation is that Losman's inadequacies forced Mularkey's hand. With Losman under center, defenses typically ganged up to stop the run. One of the running game's main purposes is to take pressure off the passing game. This purpose was being served under Losman--there was very little more defenses could do to dare us to pass. With the Bills' offensive line being what it was, running the football into a pile of nine defenders would simply have been a waste of a down. The second criticism of Mularkey's playcalling was that he wasn't willing to call enough short, safe passes for Losman. Asking a quarterback to take a five or seven step drop behind a bad line, it's said, is a recipe for disaster. But a short, safe, Holcomb-like offense only works when your quarterback is consistently accurate on short to intermediate passes. Losman wasn't. Mularkey knew that any Losman-engineered drive that relied on many consecutive short, safe completions would have been far more likely to stall than to produce points. On the other hand, Losman could sometimes throw a beautiful long bomb to Evans, and score quick points that way. This wasn't a great way to run the offense, because of the lousy line. But Losman's limitations didn't give Mularkey any real alternative.

Excellent post. The older players Marv cut couldn't help us in 2007 or 2008 anyway, so we may as well get rid of them now. If that means losing an extra game or two in 2006 (thereby improving the team's draft position) then so be it. The younger players are getting experience, and the front office gets to see which of the younger guys can play, and which can't. Sometimes veteran players set the tone for the team. In internal discussions, the Patriots described Lawyer Milloy as a "selfish leader." Sam Adams had motivation problems, and showed some signs of being a cancer. Moulds had clearly had it with the Bills. You don't want guys like that rubbing off on your younger players.

It's amazing how much abuse Ralph has taken for not selling those naming rights. Do you realize what it is you're complaining about? The fact Ralph could increase his own income by, say, $2 million a year, but is failing to do so. In other words, it's $2 million a year (or whatever it may be) out of Ralph's pocket, as opposed to exactly $0 out of any of ours. So why are so many people angry? If Ralph decides to leave some of his own money on the table, it's his right to do so. And if he thinks his heirs will be less likely to leave a stadium named after him, we should be thanking him for making this financial sacrifice to help keep the team in Buffalo.

There are a lot of unknowns on this team. How good will Fowler be? Can Nall translate his NFL Europe success into production for the Bills? Will the defensive players taken on the first day quickly make the transition to the NFL? Are the current personnel well suited to running the Fairchild offense and the Jauron defense? If all these sources of uncertainty resolve themselves favorably, the Bills may actually do something this year. I'm not counting on it, but even a pessimist like me has to admit there's a slim chance of this team making the playoffs.

I never said Peters couldn't improve his run blocking skills, just that he wasn't anything special at run blocking last year. Some guys who start off as mediocre run blockers will improve, while many others will stay mediocre. It will be interesting to see which category Peters will end up in. As for Reyes, you have to look at the quality of defensive tackle he was going up against when his team faced the Bills. Just because he looked good when lined up against Tim Anderson-type players, doesn't mean he'll look good when facing guys who can actually play. One thing I'll give Marv credit for: the free agents he's signed tend to be young guys signed for relatively little money. Say that only one guy out of three proves to be above average for a starter. Those success stories could be signed to the team for a long time. There's the chance that Peters will learn to run block, that Fowler's original team gave up on him too early, that Reyes' team also gave up on him too early, and that a guy like Preston or Butler will emerge as a quality starter. Probably at least one of these things will turn out to be true, maybe two. But expecting three or more is a little more optimistic than I'm prepared to be. If Marv didn't have the first day picks to address the offensive line anyway, I don't mind him using free agency and late round picks to create the potential for finding a good player or two. But I really hope he uses first day picks in next year's draft to address whatever holes remain on the line.

Jason Peters was an undrafted free agent. It's not like he played several years for some other NFL team that then decided they didn't want him. In that key area, he's different from a normal free agent. In any case, Peters didn't provide nearly the same level of run blocking as Mike Williams did in the second half of 2004. An athletic guy with limited run blocking skills belongs at left tackle. But his very low Wonderlic score raises questions about whether he's smart enough to make the switch. While the deeply flawed Wonderlic can't prove he's not smart enough to be a left tackle, it does raise a concern. Villarrial is another year older. If he can stay healthy, he might improve over what he did last year. But there are real doubts about how much longer his career will last. Before going to the Vikings to be a backup for Birk, Fowler played starting center for some other team (I think the Browns). While he may be an upgrade over what Teague was last year, odds are Fowler won't be at least average for a starting center. Most teams place their worst offensive lineman at RG, which is the position Reyes played for the Panthers. The Panthers were so thrilled with Reyes that they drafted his replacement, and told him he could only return as a backup. Reyes and Fowler are offensive linemen obtained through the TD-like strategy of dumpster diving. Occasionally you can find something of value in those dumpsters, as the Giants did when they obtained the former Bills linemen you mentioned. But usually teams have a good reason for not wanting specific offensive linemen, as the Bills discovered with each and every offensive line free agent TD signed. You say the draft is no longer central to the development of a good offensive line due to the new collective bargaining agreement. I don't see how the new CBA will change things. Revenues and player salaries will go up. Teams will still hold onto their best offensive linemen, leaving mostly second-tier players for the free agent market. The teams that spend the high picks on the line (such as Pittsburgh and Seattle) will still tend to have better lines than the teams that don't (such as the Bills).

In the past, the Bills used second-day picks and second-tier free agents to build their offensive line. These methods achieved significantly below average results. Thus far, Marv has addressed the line with yet more second-day picks, and more second-tier free agents. I hope Marv achieves better results through this method than did TD or Butler. But if I was a betting man, I'd bet that doing the same thing over and over again will get the same mediocre results as before. The two teams which made it to this year's Super Bowl had two of the best offensive lines in the league. Very seldom do you see someone hoist the Lombardi Trophy without a dominant offensive line. You say our line may well be good enough to get you by. But that isn't the kind of line you need to win the Super Bowl. I know there were too many holes to fill them all in one year. But sooner or later, that line needs to be addressed in a serious way.

There are three ways to build an offensive line: free agency, early draft picks, and late draft picks. Most of TD's starting offensive linemen were obtained through free agency, and look how that's worked out. Sure, if you can add a guy like LeCharles Bentley through free agency, you should do it. But typically, the offensive linemen who hit free agency are not wanted very badly by their original teams. Usually there's a reason why. I've yet to see a case where an offensive line built primarily through free agency was dominant for any length of time. That leaves the draft. During the period from 1990 - 2004, the Bills went 0-15 with their second-day offensive line picks. Success, in this case, means a player who a) started at least four years for the Bills, and b) was at least average for a starter. I hope for more from our more recent second-day picks, but I'm not expecting it. That leaves first-day draft picks. As Lori and others have pointed out, teams like Pittsburgh and Seattle built their dominant offensive lines largely on the draft's first day. Not every first-day offensive line pick will be a success, as shown by the Mike Williams pick. But other positions produce busts also; usually at a higher rate than the offensive line. It's been four years since this team used a first day pick on an offensive lineman; and I for one am less than pleased by this neglect.

I'd be happy with that. Hopefully, one of the following will happen: someone on the roster (probably Nall) will take control of the quarterback position, and clearly prove himself the answer, or the Bills will have a bad enough record to be able to draft Brady Quinn. The worst-case scenario would be for the team to overcome bad quarterback play to achieve a few meaningless wins against the likes of the Titans and the Jets.

I assume the Panthers wanted to replace Reyes for a reason. As for Fowler--I admit it's tough to win a starting spot when you're playing behind a Pro Bowl caliber guy, but it wasn't like he was with his first team when this happened to him. He has a lot to prove. Also, this would have been the perfect year to draft a replacement for the aging Villarrial. You give Villarrial one more year as the starter, then let your draft pick start in 2007. I wouldn't have minded the Bills drafting two guards and a center. I also wouldn't mind a left tackle if he'd be a significant upgrade over Gandy. Suppose the Bills had done the following in the draft: - Trade down from #8 to #15, and take Whitner at #15. - Use the extra draft pick from this to take an interior OL. - Trade away Clements for a first round pick; and use that pick to take Mangold. Now you've made two very solid moves to create a dominant interior OL, without giving up any of the defensive players the Bills took. What are the disadvantages to this plan? - You risk losing Whitner. However, I have yet to see a mock draft which had Whitner going between picks 9 - 15. Teams are secretive about their draft plans, and I doubt a front office could do a better job of penetrating this secrecy than those preparing mock drafts. - You lose Nate Clements. But the Bills may well lose him in a year, with no compensation. In any case, his replacement already appears to be on the roster. Overall, the chance of having a dominant interior OL vastly outweighs the disadvantages to this plan.

Why am I supposed to trust this "insider analysis" when it contradicts itself? Does this guy have an above-average arm, or is he too weak to be a starter?

I'm not going to judge Losman or any other QB based on the number of wins in the regular season, playoffs, or the Super Bowl. Dilfer has more Super Bowl rings than Kelly and Marino combined, but he's clearly not a Hall of Famer like those two. What I expect from a quarterback in general is accuracy, consistency, ability to read the defense, and leadership. Maybe I'm asking for Losman to be something he's not.

When I saw "Losman to Oakland," I wanted to believe, but deep down I knew it was too good to be true.

The point of view you expressed earlier about Whitner and McCargo appears to be intelligent and well thought-out. I just wish you'd expressed it a little more politely, because I don't want this thread to degenerate into a shouting match.

My preference would have been for Mangold over McCargo. Barring that, I would have looked very strongly at offensive linemen in the second and third rounds. Typically you don't get much contribution from your rookies anyway, so the fact you'd have to wait a year to get contributions from those linemen doesn't bother me.

I'm not saying I agree with the Bills' draft. Had I been in charge, I'd have placed a far greater emphasis on the offensive line. That said, here's what the Bills may have been thinking with the 2006 draft. The Patriots typically dominate us in many areas, but the most consistent has been their ability to pass the ball at will. The single most deadly aspect of their passing game is their ability to complete passes quickly, before the pass rush could reasonably be expected to do anything. So the secondary was made the #1 priority for the draft. But you need a pass rush too; which is why Triplett and McCargo were added to the team. All this extra talent makes it conceivable the Bills will stop--or at least slow--the Patriots' passing game. The road to an AFC East division title goes through New England. While we won't beat the Patriots this year, we may have taken an important step towards beating them in 2007.

Not to sound like a pessimist, but here's what's going to happen. The Bills are going to be in a game against the Giants which will decide whether we make the playoffs. Eli Manning will get hurt, and Rob Johnson will come in. Familiar with Johnson's track record, the Bills will employ constant blitzing to rattle him and make him take sacks. But Johnson will get rid of the ball quickly, he'll sense and avoid pocket pressure; and ultimately he'll win the game for the Giants. Afterwards, he'll talk about how the game's slowed down for him, and be as cheerful as can be. Do I really think all this will happen? Not really, but based on the Bills' luck, I wouldn't be shocked if it did.

An excellent point. People have the right to protect their property from thieves.

There are two paths to winning the Super Bowl: - Achieve truly elite status in one area, and be at least respectable everywhere else. - Be on the verge of dominance across the board, even though no one area quite reaches elite status. Either way, you have to be able to take control of the football game in some area. The 49ers of the '80s used an elite passing attack to take control of football games. The Ravens of 2000 used one of the best defenses ever to do so. Then there are teams which are on the verge of dominance across the board. Take the New England Patriots team that won those Super Bowls. Their passing game was on the verge of dominance, and was capable of taking control of football games. But so was their defense. The same could be said of this year's Steelers team. The only way to get out of needing a good quarterback is to achieve elite status in some area other than the passing attack. If memory serves, the last team to do this was the Ravens of 2000. They had built a truly elite defense, and so could get by with a passing game that was merely respectable. But most of the time, you're going to need a quarterback. Some might feel the sole or main determining factor in a quarterback's success is the time he's given to throw. There's some truth to this view, as a quarterback without a line won't get you anywhere. But the quarterback still matters--a lot. Suppose your supporting cast consisted of players like Orlando Pace, Marshall Faulk, Isaac Bruce, etc. If your quarterback's name is Billy Joe Hobart, there's no way your offense becomes The Greatest Show on Turf.

I feel the same way. I know the Sabres had an uphill battle with all those defensemen hurt. But after they went up 2-1, I started to think maybe they'd put away the Hurricanes for good.