Orton's Arm

You feel I've veered off-topic? The original post referenced an article which had the following to say: Darin's original point was that people who hand out draft grades can sometimes make huge mistakes. I agree with that. But in the case of Travis Henry, the author hit the nail on the head. This wasn't just about assessing Travis's talent. It was a comparison between Travis and the Bills' other backs. Based on that comparison, the Sporting News author correctly concluded Travis was a poor choice.

Now that Marv's back, I've noticed a lot more WWII references cropping up. Yours is a good point about the Red Army, but bear in mind that by the fall of 1941, that army was fighting almost as fanatically as the Germans. Take away that fanaticism, and Nazi Germany would stretch from France all the way to China and the Pacific.

There's more truth to your description than you may realize. Somewhere in Florida, there's a shelf of books that isn't falling over thanks to Mike Williams. The guy's just sitting there, holding them up. If he ever develops enough of a work ethic to get up off his rear, those books will come toppling over. So far it hasn't happened.

Well said! When guys like Reich and Beebe showed character, the team reaped the rewards. But not all the Bills always displayed character. In the second half of that Dallas Super Bowl, the scoreboard said the Bills had a clear chance to win. But Thurman's body language and whole demeanor told a very different story. The team paid a price for this; just as it paid a price for the fact that too many players spent too much time at parties leading up to some of those Super Bowls.

There are two ways to win football games. Either you can have vanilla coaching and superior talent (Cowboys of the '90s) or you can have decent talent and superior coaching (the Patriots). Either way, you need players who make the most of the ability they've been given. A player who has superior talent but lacks mental toughness--such as Mike Williams--doesn't have a key role to play on any championship team. But stupid players who have mental toughness can be used at certain positions, and in certain schemes. Leon Lett had a long and productive career, despite being the mental equal of a rather cunning ox. But even though he was a player playing a simple position in a simple scheme, his stupidity occassionaly cost his team.

I was going to make a comment about how glad I was OJ wasn't defacing the Bills' name by wearing their gear. But yours is a much better comment.

Um . . . the Japanese were the ones who bombed Pearl Harbor.

That was a GREAT game. The only hockey game which I'd rate higher was game 6 of the Stanley Cup. I wish one of the two teams had won game 6. (There's a difference between winning a game, and being declared winner of a game.) But other than the way that game ended, it was a great game--you could tell every player gave it everything he had. Triple overtime. A good D, and an invincible goalie. It was awesome.

A few years back, you could have written, "John Fox is a good defensive coordinator--not a head coach."

I just came across this!

Rather than read through all 11 pages of this, I'll contribute something I'm sure can't possibly have been said: Mike Williams plays for Jacksonville, not Tampa Bay.

To my mind, talent evaluation and managerial abilities go hand-in-hand. Back in 2001, it was TD's responsibility to evaluate the talent not just of Travis Henry, but of Antowain Smith. Based on those two evaluations, he concluded Henry's next few years would be so much better than Smith's that it was worth giving up a 2nd round pick to move from Smith to Henry. Was he right? Granted, Antowain Smith didn't play at the level you'd expect from a first round pick like him. But he did have a long career; playing at about the level you'd expect from maybe a third round pick. You have to give Butler a little bit of credit for finding a guy that was decent; and you have to take credit away from TD for later negating the value Butler had found. In my mind, the negative points TD gets for getting rid of Antowain Smith pretty much cancel out the positive points he gets for Henry's success; leaving him with a net score of zero for that particular pick. Suppose Marv cuts TD draft choices who go on to have successful careers elsewhere. I'd likewise give Marv negative points for doing that; and these points would count against whatever positive things he achieves.

In my mind, the purpose of the draft is to build long-term value for your team. The 2001 draft achieved this to a certain degree, but not to the degree I'd have liked. You seem to think that good player selection was sometimes spoiled by poor post-draft player management. Fair enough. I'm not trying to change the subject with this draft conversation; it's just that I see things differently. My thought process is this: you build the core of your team through the draft, then you round out the edges via free agency. You can't get very far without a core group of high level players that will be with you a long time. Peyton Manning and Marvin Harrison in Indy. Jim Kelly, Andre Reed, and Thurman Thomas with the Super Bowl Bills. Troy Aikman, Michael Irvin, and Emmitt Smith with the Cowboys. Players like that. If the goal of the draft is to build such a core, then you evaluate a draft by the extent to which such a core was in fact built. If you look back and see that all you have left is Aaron Schobel, a 3rd round pick from trading away Henry, and the right to franchise Clements, there's the extent of your core. Basically, one guy, and the possibility of two more (assuming Clements agrees to an extension, and that Youboty works out well). The draft could have been worse, as we learned in 2002. But it also could have been better. Was this a case of having the right players, but not getting them signed to the right contracts? Maybe; if you're willing to overlook Clements' disappointing 2005 season, Jennings' injuries, and the apparent brevity of Henry's career. In any case, I happen to view contracts as part of the drafting process. If you're confident a guy is going to work out long-term, you give him a long contract, as TD did with Mike Williams. If you're less sure, you sign him to a shorter deal, as TD did with Nate Clements, Jonas Jennings, and Travis Henry. While good player contracts can't save a bad draft; poor player contracts can largely spoil a good draft years after it's taken place.

You've been pretty consistent in giving the benefit of the doubt to Tagliabue etc. instead of to Ralph. I find this hard to understand. Look at the generous deals given to teams like the Rams and the old Cleveland Browns to relocate. You have to believe Ralph could have cashed in himself, had he been willing to move the team to a different city. The fact that he walked away from all that extra money is rock-solid evidence he cares about keeping the Bills in Buffalo. How deeply does Tagliabue care about keeping the Bills in Buffalo? How deeply do owners of teams like the Cowboys or Redskins care? Who knows? Your statements about the benign intentions of such people are pure conjecture. On the other hand, we know Ralph cares, because the team is still here. We want what Ralph wants--to keep the Bills in Buffalo. The others involved in this debate have their own agendas; agendas which may or may not involve keeping the Bills here. Given the complexity of the agreement, its still-unresolved state, and its secret nature, we're not in a position to go directly to the source for our information. We have to take someone's word for what's going on. I say we take the word of the man whose interests are most like our own. We have to stand with Ralph.

Ralph was right, and I'm glad other small market owners are starting to recognize that fact.

Why not make your sig even more annoying by quoting this post too?

The bottom line with Jennings is that he went four and out. It's easy to get bogged down with a Jennings discussion. If I say Jennings should have been extended after year 2 or 3 (thereby preventing San Francisco from showing him crazy money) people come back by saying he was injury-prone, and unworthy of a long-term deal. So either TD messed up by taking a player too injury-prone to be worthy of an extension, or he messed up by letting Jennings hit free agency. One or the other. Either way, it's four and out with Jennings. You'll notice that Antowain Smith's average yards per carry is 3.9, while Travis Henry's is 4.0. Do you really want to use a second round pick on a 0.1 yards per carry upgrade? Consider the fact that Smith was better at avoiding fumbles than Henry, and the fact that Henry's blocking and pass catching skills left a little something to be desired. So it's not like you're getting a complete back. On the other hand, that second round pick squandered on trying to upgrade the RB position could have been used in a more solid, though less glamorous way--upgrading the offensive line. Clements is a Pro Bowler in the same sense Antowain Winfield is a Pro Bowler--they're both excellent players TD should have done more to keep. Had TD locked Clements up to a long-term deal, do you really think the Bills would have drafted Youboty?

How much is that 2001 draft helping the Bills today? Jennings went four and out; Henry provided little to no upgrade over Antowain Smith before being traded away, and Clements may or may not be here at this time next year. That leaves just Aaron Schobel; a DE who is average or a little above average for a starter.

Now that the Sabres game is over, it's time for another humor post. Marv in 2006: "You can't have too many defensive backs, so I'll act accordingly." Marv in 2009: "You can't have too many defensive backs, and I've acted accordingly." Reporter: "Does it bother you that of the 52 men on the roster, 46 are defensive backs? And that the other six guys are quietly being eased off the team?" Marv: "I'm sorry if this bothers you, but you just can't have too many defensive backs."

Marv seemed so different than all the other GMs. A charming man, he seemed to be able to look beyond just physical traits. He talked about how he valued intelligence and character. But when that third round pick rolled around, it became clear all he really wanted was Youboty. I know you've heard lots of good things about Youboty. Youboty is very desirable--everyone says so. While all men may want Youboty, it's easy to wish Marv had wanted something more. The coaching staff has all kinds of exciting plans for Youboty. They talk about Youboty's "potential" to fulfill their wildest fantasies. They'd been gazing longingly at Youboty for months, so this is a dream come true. Some said Marv should have been looking for the next Duval Love; a former guard from the Pittsburgh Steelers. Others wanted a player that would be what Erik Flowers should have been. But Marv wasn't interested in Love. He didn't spend any money on Flowers. All he wanted was Youboty.

In this case, it's literally true because of your double post! That said, I like the emphasis on character guys. I just don't see why Marv couldn't have traded down and still gotten guys with good character--perhaps even the same guys he ended up taking. Be that as it may, I hope the picks work out well, and that this draft proves to be a stepping stone to the kind of team the Bills should be.

Well, he was the personnel guy when the Bills' 3-4 defense had all that success in the late '90s. In addition, he was with the Bills when TD had his best draft back in 2001. Adams was never the guy to make the final call, so you can't hold him accountable for win-loss records. But based on what little we know, it seems this guy's got his head on straight.

Suppose Marv had traded down with his first round pick, and had taken Mangold. Then with his two second-round picks, he'd taken one offensive lineman, and one defensive lineman. Regardless of what he did from that point forward, I don't think you'd see a lot of people ripping him; either now or during the season.

I know one guy who doesn't feel defense wins championships: Dwight Adams.

I'd be happy to answer your question. Of your 22 starters, 5 are offensive linemen. If you felt the offensive line was of equal importance with the rest of your team, you'd want 5/22 (or 23%) of your first-day picks to be offensive linemen. TD had 18 first-day picks during his tenure here. Of those, only two (11%) were used on offensive linemen. This, despite the fact that: - Moulds was a long-term answer at WR; reducing the need to address that position. - Antowain Smith was good enough to get you by, meaning TD could have ignored the RB position for a few years while he fixed the line. So TD used only 11% of his first-day picks on offensive linemen, despite the fact that linemen are 23% of your starters, and despite the line's sorry state when he got here. This neglect was exacerbated by the fact that one of his two selections was a bust, while the other one's contract was allowed to expire after just four years. While it wouldn't have made sense to match San Francisco's offer, why let things get to that point in the first place? Why not lock Jennings up after year 2 or year 3? Well, you say, what about the second day of the draft? TD had 25 second-day selections, of which 6 (or 24%) were used on offensive linemen. That's a little bit better than the 23% rate that's par for the course. But most second-day picks don't work out, which is why a fifth or sixth round pick has only a fraction of the trade value of a first day pick. Picking offensive linemen at a normal rate on day two doesn't compensate for choosing them at a half of normal rate on day one. Well, some might ask, what about free agency? Typically, the Bills didn't break the bank when shopping for free agent offensive linemen. Nor did we receive much quality play from our bargain purchases. The low price/low performance combination for free agent offensive linemen under TD supports the contention the line was being neglected. Edit: I also looked at the period from 1992 (the year Fina was drafted) to 2000. The Bills had 29 first day selections from 1992 - 2000. Of those, the Bills used just 4 (or 14%) on offensive linemen. Of their 54 second-day selections, just 6 (or 11%) were used on offensive linemen. Both numbers would have to be at 23% for the line to be getting its fair share of players. As a consequence of this neglect, the Bills' line declined after the Super Bowl glory years. By the late '90s, it was mediocre at best.