Orton's Arm

You know, I'm not pleased with Clements' absence either. There are two very good reasons for him to be there: - He had a lousy season in 2005, and should be doing everything he can to improve. - The Bills are switching to a Cover-2 defense, which entails a very different understanding of the CB position. He should be there to learn this new defensive scheme.

nm

Peters is getting paid hundreds of thousands or millions each year. If he does well, he has a chance at signing bonus of over $5 million. I can only speak for myself, but with that kind of money on the line, I'd be there, and I'd listen to every word out of McNally's mouth like it was gold.

If you haven't done so already--or even if you have--I encourage you to post this observation over at the 22 page Mike Williams Tampa Bay thread. A few dozen more posts pointing out Williams plays for Jacksonville would be a real help in getting that thread up to the 30 pages it deserves!

Perhaps I should make myself more clear. You could divide mistakes up into three categories: - Those which could be avoided by knowing the playbook - Those which could be avoided by studying film - Those which could be avoided through playing time and experience. With respect to the first two, Losman was a second-year player. With respect to the third, he was basically a rookie. Overall, these things average out to where you'd expect fewer mistakes from Losman than from a true rookie, but more from him than from a guy who'd been playing his whole rookie year.

Not what I said. But mental reps, studying film, and learning the playbook are supposed to help. Chris Spielman produced on-field results far in excess of his talents largely through his extra dedication in the film room. It's not unrealistic to expect film study and other forms of preparation to help Losman too.

Hence all those Bills sellouts over the last five years.

Um, no. He had his whole rookie year to study the playbook, study film of whichever quarterbacks the coaches chose to show him, and to take mental reps in practice. In addition, he had two years worth of summer sessions with which to prepare for his second year. I'll agree he received only token playing time as a rookie, and that he missed a lot of thowing sessions because of that broken leg. But while his situation wasn't quite the same as the typical QB who spends his rookie year on the bench, neither was it the same as a true rookie who gets thrown in without a real chance to learn the whole playbook.

I agree the 2004 line got better as the year went on, because the guys adjusted to working with each other. Beyond that, though, the diminishing performance of the line really did have a lot to do with the worse 2005 record. Ross Tucker was clearly better than Bennie Anderson. A healthy Jonas Jennings was clearly better than Mike Gandy. Teague, Villarrial, and Williams were clearly less hampered by injuries in 2004 than 2005. While other factors also contributed to the 2005 decline, the reduced quality of play at each and every offensive line position clearly played a major role.

I voted for Levy. Only one good defensive coordinator (Wade) and one good offensive coordinator (Marchibroda). Allowed a sense of defeat and malaise to set in during the second half of Bills/Cowboys round 2. Was clearly outcoached in the Giants Super Bowl.

Tampa Bay improved itself enormously at tackle by signing Big Mike Williams. I mean, that was one big signing right there. It was huge. So huge it blocked out the sun.

Why on earth are you apologizing for that previous post? You brought up legitimate shortcomings of some posts, and did it without resorting to personal attacks. That's a rare thing on these boards.

Look at the state of the offensive line in 2005 versus 2004: 2004 Jennings Tucker Teague (healthy) Villarrial (healthy) Williams (healthy and surprisingly effective) 2005 Gandy Anderson Teague (injured/ineffective) Villarrial (injured/ineffective) Williams (injured/ineffective); later Peters There's not one offensive line position--not one--where the Bills had the same quality of play in 2005 as in 2004. Downgrades across the board. Do you think this affected the win/loss record? I do.

Let's look at the numbers: Bledsoe in 2004 Yards/game: 183.5 Passer rating: 76.6 Holcomb in 2005 Yards/game: 201.2 Passer rating: 85.6 Both QBs were working with the same coaching staff and the same receivers. Bear in mind that the offensive line was considerably better in 2004 than in 2005, so Bledsoe's numbers ought to be a little better than Holcomb's even if they both played the same. Instead, Holcomb has the better numbers. Would Holcomb have been as good a QB for Dallas as Bledsoe was? No. But Holcomb was the better QB for the Bills because he could read the field faster, and get rid of the ball quicker. On a team with no offensive line, the ability to get rid of the ball quickly matters a lot more than what you can do with the football when you have five seconds to throw.

This is clearly his weakest point. Jauron comes from the defensive side of the ball; so Steve Fairchild will be able to coach the offense without undue interference. I watched a Rams game or two when Fairchild was calling the plays. They did a nice job of having Jackson pound the ball, while using the deep ball as a frequent weapon. It was a nice combination; one which I look forward to seeing more of as Fairchild calls plays for the Bills. I don't exactly view the Bills with rose colored glasses, but Fairchild's playcalling is a significant bright spot for this team. Mark it down.

That's why it's good to pick some issue, and strongly identify yourself with one side of it. Not that I'd dream of doing this myself of course--especially not with respect to the Bills' QB position!!! I'm just throwing out ideas is all.

I think it's unrealistic to expect Levy to fill all of this team's holes in just one year. The fact the team seems to still be weak at run-stopping DT is too bad, but I don't see what else Levy could have done. In any case, we took that run stopper of a DT in the fifth, who at least gives us a fighting chance of solving the problem. The real questions I have about this team involve the offense. Is Craig Nall capable of a Kurt Warner-like emergence from NFL Europe? Are those late round picks and free agents capable of forming a solid offensive line? What on earth will happen at tight end? Can Lee Evans be the go-to guy? Can anyone else on the roster be as good a #2 as Evans was the last two years? What type of play will we see from McGahee and the other RBs?

Now that TD's gone, I'm expecting six wins for 2006. Hope springs eternal, I suppose.

I feel you've misrepresented those who contend the Bills didn't get good value on draft day. You seem to portray such people as too drunk or glazed over to truly understand the potential value of second-day picks. Yet it was precisely to acquire additional picks that many feel Levy should have taken Whitner at some spot lower than #8.

Me? A pessimist? Well . . . maybe just a little. But I blame it on external circumstances. In his fifth year of the rebuilding project, TD led the Bills to just five wins. Moreover, those five wins were achieved largely through the efforts of aging veterans such as Lawyer Milloy, London Fletcher, and Eric Moulds. There were no obvious replacements ready to step in when it came time for those guys to hang up their cleats. Under those circumstances, asking for at least five wins in 2006 would have been unrealistic. I really did start off with high hopes for TD; both because of the good things I'd heard about his Pittsburgh work, and because he seemed to impose the salary cap discipline Butler lacked. These high hopes were slowly, methodically ground into dust, leaving me a bitter, broken man. Pessimism is all that remains to me. But even if I'm guilty of pessimism in general, I pride myself on the fact that I've never once allowed such pessimism to taint my opinion of Losman. Nobody could ask for a more objective evaluation of Losman's strengths and weaknesses than my own. (Just for the record, the above post is mostly tongue in cheek.)

Maybe he didn't interview as well as Gregg.

I agree there's potential. But Peters has little or no experience at left tackle at all. In some people's minds--not yours, but some--he's already a Pro Bowler at the position. Players like Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, and Mike Williams have shown us flashes of good play, only to leave us disappointed in the long run. While Peters has done enough to give us hope, he's still got a lot to prove.

Thanks for throwing me such an easy pitch! During his time with the Bills, TD spent three first day picks on WRs--more than he spent on the offensive line. He also used two first-day picks on RBs--the same number as were spent on the line. Now count the starters--there's one RB, two to three WRs, and five offensive linemen. So there ought to be a 5:1 ratio of linemen to RBs taken, and a 5:2 or 5:3 ratio of linemen to WRs taken. Remember that TD started off with Moulds, Price, and Antowain Smith--but no offensive linemen except an aging Brown--and you'll see TD's priorities weren't in order. Halfway through the 2002 season, the lack of an interior offensive line was already beginning to take a devastating toll on the Bills' offense. My point wasn't about the merits or demerits of Josh Reed. It was that instead of using that 2nd round pick on a slot receiver, it could have been used on the interior OL. Do you see any evidence at all for the opposite view? Were TD's draft choices collectively known for squeezing every last drop of performance from whatever athletic talent they'd been given? The Bills had entirely too many Mike Williams-style players--guys who had worlds of potential but lacked passion for the game.

Apparently not, as you seem to confuse Antowain Winfield with Antowain Smith. Antowain Winfield was an excellent CB taken by Butler in the first round. He hit free agency after (IIRC) five years with the Bills. This young, Pro Bowl-level CB became the most sought-after free agent defensive back that year. The Jets and Vikings were both deeply interested in him. Even if TD didn't have the salary cap space to give Winfield what he wanted, he at least could have slapped the franchise tag on him, and then have made those two teams use draft picks to bid against each other. Instead he got nothing for Winfield. Henry was a good between-the-tackles runner for the few years he lasted. But cutting the young Antowain Smith created an artificial need at RB when the team had enough holes already. As for the salary cap mess, the way you're supposed to deal with that is by getting rid of the highly paid old guys--not by cutting young players with bright futures ahead of them such as Antowain Smith. In other words, you'd be willing to trade away a first round pick for one good year of QB play. Trading away first round picks for one-and-done type players makes sense if you're on the verge of a Super Bowl. But the Bills had gone 3-13. If ever there was a time to start looking for your quarterback of the future, it would be when your team has come off a 3-13 season, and has just cut RJ. Rookie QBs take a while to develop, so it's best to get the process started as early as possible. Not only did the Bills lose a first round pick through the Bledsoe acquisition, they incurred a two year delay in the search for the QB of the future. Next year's 6-10 record showed this was just a flash in the pan. Because the defense was built to win now or never, it didn't make sense to invest so many resources into the QB of the future. The Bills could have addressed the QB of the future issue by taking Matt Schaub in the 3rd round, while using the Losman picks on the offensive line or the defense.

It's a little harder to break into the Patriots' starting offensive line, than it is to start on TD's line. Tucker was a solid starter in 2004, and he was making peanuts. TD should have placed him on injured reserve for 2005. If he comes back in 2006, we'd never have to hear the words "Bennie Anderson" and "starter" again in the same sentence. If he doesn't, all you've lost is a tiny amount of salary cap space. Considering how difficult it was for TD to find quality offensive linemen, he should have been a little less cavalier in getting rid of the ones he did find.