Orton's Arm

I guess I had that coming after all my digs against Losman on this thread.

From the video you watched, how quickly did he read the field and make decisions?

Exactly. He seemed to think good offensive linemen were a dime a dozen. That's why he released Tucker instead of waiting for him to return from his injury. Releasing Bledsoe in favor of an unready Losman wasn't exactly a stroke of genius either. I'd say the McGahee upgrade over Henry was one of the reasons for the Bills' improvement on offense. The others were these: - The offensive line gelled - The offense as a whole adapted to the new system - The defenses we faced early in the year were really good, making everything look worse than it was - Tucker did a much better job at LG than that ex-Raven that started there earlier in the year

You know which injury didn't get nearly the attention it deserved? The one to Ross Tucker. Tucker's play was an important part of the success the OL experienced in the second half of the 2004 season. Then he got injured in the offseason. Instead of putting him on injured reserve, TD released him. He healed, and the Patriots wisely picked him up. Bennie Anderson is currently atop the Bills' depth chart at LG.

It's both realistic and disappointing. I say that because none of the top five non-QBs (Bush, Williams, Ferguson, Hawk, or Davis) fell to the Bills at #8 in any of the drafts that got munched.

Agreed. I plan to give Nall more than just eight starts before writing him off.

Holcomb is a known commodity, so there's an incentive for a risk-adverse coach to go with him. That said, Nall has a lot more upside, and is probably a better fit for Fairchild's offense. If the Bills don't like what they see from either of those two, they could always draft a QB. If they did decide to draft someone, the perfect situation would be to find this year's Matt Schaub: an accurate QB and a good decision maker who can be had in the middle rounds of the draft. Not sure who that would be.

Take them all seriously!! Here's how. Each time a mock draft comes your way, enter the results into a spreadsheet. Keep track of the percentage of mock drafts that have Ferguson falling to us, or Davis falling, etc. If one mock out of every ten has Ferguson available at #8, you could say there's a 10% chance of him being there. This wouldn't exactly be the most productive possible use for your time, but if you're bored . . .

That Packers list isn't that bad. The Patriots are something of an anomaly, due to the absolutely outstanding quality of their coaching, and due to Belichick's and Pioli's exceptional ability to find good players later in the draft. In any case, they got Damien Woody and Richard Seymour in the first round. As for the Bucs, below are some other first round picks leading up to their Super Bowl win: 1995: Warren Sapp 1996: Regan Upshaw, Marcus Jones 1997: Warrick Dunn, Reidel Anthony 1998: (none) 1999: Anthony McFarland Look at the Steeler's picks leading up to their recent Super Bowl win: 2000: Plaxico Burress 2001: Casey Hampton 2002: Kendall Simmons 2003: Troy Polamalu 2004: Ben Roethlisberger 2005: Heath Miller Kendall Simmons may not be a household name, but he's a starting guard on that Pittsburgh line.

My point about Evans was that it's too soon to decide whether the pick was successful. He's shown himself a very good #2 WR. But you don't take a guy 13th overall and hope for just a good #2. If he does well in the go-to role, then he's a successful pick. But not until then.

In addition to these points, you asked which RG the Bills could have taken at #23. Eric Steinbach was chosen by the Bengals with pick #33. The Bills could have taken him at #23, or they could have traded down a few slots and have drafted him plus someone else. You do make a strong case for McGahee. I'll agree his threat to the outside makes the Bills' offense harder to defend, and that Henry did little this past year. If McGahee has a good year this coming year, and if Henry continues to disappoint, I'll change that part of my sig. As for Bledsoe, I just don't see how increasing Peerless' trade value could possibly have been part of the plan in bringing Bledsoe here. As for the other part of the Bledsoe argument, the core of any successful team is a group of high level players who spend their entire careers with your organization. Indy's core is Peyton Manning, Marvin Harrison, etc. The '90s Bills' core was Kelly, Thomas, Reed, Smith, etc. Good teams like those would go through ups and downs over the years, but they knew those core guys would always give them a foundation upon which to build. Then if you sign free agents, and have a few draft choices work out, maybe you can have a special year. At the end of the 2001 season, the Bills didn't have a very strong core. There were a few guys--Winfield, Price, Clements, Moulds, Williams, etc.--but not as many as you'd like. There was no way TD was going to get anywhere near the Super Bowl unless he rectified this situation. Squandering a 1st round pick on a guy who could only give you one good year isn't the way to fix this problem. Due to his age, there was no possible way Bledsoe could have made the kind of lasting contribution that a successful first round pick could have made. The goal--at least for me--is for the Bills to win the Super Bowl. Assume you start with an expansion roster, which is how TD seemed to regard the Bills team he took over. You know that even if your moves work, a Super Bowl ring is years away. So you begin by acquiring players that have the best chance of helping your team over the long-term. Some of these players will work out, others won't. Assuming your successes outweigh your failures, then in a few years you'll have a group of talented, up-and-coming players. Once you have this in place, you can then invest more of your resources in moves with a shorter-term time horizon. Bearing in mind your team will live and die by the core of players you assembled in the beginning of your tenure, your time horizon should largely be dictated by how far along those guys are in their careers. So if Jim Kelly's going to be retiring in two years, it might not make sense to use your first round pick on a guy who needs two years to develop. But if Jim Kelly is in his second year, you don't want to trade away your first round pick for a guy who's on the tail end of his career. Eventually, the core players will retire, and the whole thing will come crashing down. At that point, your record will be lousy, so you can use the early-round draft choices to start the cycle over again. The decision to trade away a 1st for Bledsoe represents a departure from this line of thinking. After the 3-13 season, TD had to know the Bills were a long way from having the kind of talented core I've written about. By giving up that 1st round pick, he deprived himself of the type of resource most needed to acquire that core. Look at how first round picks helped build the Cowboys' roster of the mid-'90s. Below is a list of the Cowboys' first round picks: 1988: Michael Irvin 1989: Troy Aikman 1990: Emmitt Smith 1991: Russell Maryland, Alvin Harper, Kelvin Pritchett 1992: Kevin Smith, Robert Jones Yes, there's an element of chance to the draft, and some picks will work out better than others. Nonetheless, the Cowboys' disciplined approach to building a team over the long-term resulted in three Super Bowl rings in the '90s. Or take the 1st round draft picks leading up to the Ravens' Super Bowl win: 1996: Jonathan Ogden, Ray Lewis 1997: Peter Boulware 1998: Duane Starks 1999: Chris McAllister 2000: Jamal Lewis, Travis Taylor Or the Bills' 1st round picks leading up to the Super Bowls: 1983: Tony Hunter, Jim Kelly 1984: Greg Bell 1985: Bruce Smith, Derrick Burroughs 1986: Ronnie Harmon, Wil Wolford 1987: Shane Conlan 1988 - 1989: none 1990: James Williams 1991: Henry Jones A few more failures than some other lists, which is part of the reason why the Bills didn't actually win any Super Bowls. But you can see how the successes on the list helped get them there.

Dr. Z article

He could have a competition with Monte Brown, Leif Larson, and Mike Williams to see who could bench the most.

I guess I must be, if I think Losman's still going to be on the roster by the time Nall and Holcomb both get hurt!

When I wrote that I'm more pessimistic about Losman than most, I was expecting to hear "that's the understatement of the year." This board is full of surprises.

Fair enough. We've been over the Nate Clements ground already, and it's obvious to both of us Mike Williams was a bust. So I'll address the other players on the list: Drew Bledsoe: You contend that Bledsoe was a wash, because of his stellar performance in 2002, and because there were no other options available. You go on to say that the Bills would have been justified by cutting him after his poor performance in 2003. But bear in mind the Bills had gone 3-13 the year before they acquired Bledsoe. Does it make sense for a 3-13 team to trade away a first round pick to obtain a single year of spectacular play from someone? If the Bills were a QB away from the Super Bowl, you could make a case for this kind of decision. Willis McGahee: Do I feel McGahee is a better back than Henry? Yes. But I feel the McGahee pick should have been used on a good offensive lineman instead. I feel Henry + the offensive lineman > McGahee. One of the reasons for the offense's collapse in 2003 was that it was too easy for teams to send pressure up the middle. Also, a decent back behind a good line will produce more than a good back behind a putrid line. Lee Evans and J.P. Losman: both guys are relatively new, and we don't know what their futures hold. I tend to be more pessimistic about Losman than most.

Hopefully I haven't missed anything in condensing your post. I'll respond to your points individually: 1. As was so often the case with TD's decisions, the Jennings pick didn't help the Bills for more than a few years. The bottom line is that the Bills had too few players who could help over the long term, and the Jennings pick is part of that. 2 & 3. I don't doubt Milloy's immediate, massive impact. But this was another of TD's shooting star decisions: actions that provided a quick, brilliant flash, then nothing. 4. I wasn't actually advocating the Bills keep Winfield for his career. He had too much trade value, and there were too many other good players at CB, for that to have been the best possible outcome. If the goal was to get rid of Winfield to obtain better play at SS, the Bills could have achieved this by trading Winfield away for a 1st round pick, then using that pick to take an outstanding SS. Had TD done so, that player would almost certainly have been a massive upgrade over Wire--the current starting SS for the Bills.

I'll grant the Peerless trade worked out well, and that Bledsoe's performance was a big part of it. The reasons for this were the following: 1. At least for a short time, Bledsoe put up far better numbers in Buffalo than he had in his last few years in New England. 2. One of the beneficiaries of this was Peerless. Merely increasing Peerless's market value a little would have been counterproductive, as he would just have gotten that much harder to re-sign. 3. Atlanta responded to Peerless's great year by falling for him almost as hard as Mike Ditka fell for Ricky Williams. As a result, Atlanta grossly overpaid for him in terms of salary and draft choices. 4. Peerless subsequently developed eye problems, all but ending his career. Because of this, giving Peerless a long-term deal shortly before Bledsoe came wouldn't have been a good idea, at least not in retrospect. 5. The McGahee pick worked out well. Many factors went into making the Peerless deal as one-sided as it was. TD couldn't possibly have predicted many of these things. In other words, he got lucky. Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good. I feel TD's thought process going into 2002 was the following: 1. I need better QB than Van Pelt, so I'll trade for Bledsoe. 2. Cleaning up the salary cap mess is a higher priority than retaining young talent, so I won't extend Peerless. Then once the 2002 season was over, TD probably realized that because of Peerless's outstanding year, he could actually extract trade value from the man. This value was significantly increased due to Atlanta's determination to blame Vick's problems on his WRs.

While I'll file most of your post in the "agree to disagree" category, I'd like to talk about one or two things you mentioned. First is Jennings, a third round pick who provided four injury-plagued years of service to the Bills. That isn't a successful draft choice. Examining the reasons for this lack of success--injuries, San Francisco, etc.--isn't important. The bottom line is that that particular draft choice is contributing nothing to the Buffalo Bills of today. You say it made sense for the Bills to not franchise Winfield so as to clear up salary cap space for Lawyer Milloy. That represents the kind of short-term thinking that got TD into trouble so often to begin with. First off, NE didn't release Milloy until a week before the season started. Winfield could have been traded away long before then. But even if it did come down to a choice between Winfield and Milloy, you really have to go with Winfield. A young, proven player like him is the core of any successful football team. You can't just let guys like that walk out the door for nothing when you have so few of them. If you were to make a list of the players on the Bills' roster, and rank them according to trade value, Antoine Winfield would have been in the top 3, and probably #1. What about the hole at SS? You could address it in the draft, or by signing an inexpensive free agent who would still have been an upgrade over Wire. What about the embarrassment of riches at CB? You hold onto those riches, until the right opportunity comes along to sell some of them at a high price. Based on the interest the Vikings and the Jets had in Winfield, that opportunity would have come quickly. Suppose the Bills had franchised and traded Winfield. They could have used the resulting high draft choice on a SS. Had TD taken that road, then right now, the Bills could have a better SS on their roster than Wire. The roster Levy was handed included neither Antoine Winfield, nor any long-term answers at SS. So he got the worst of both worlds.

I agree with you about Losman's limitations. But I don't expect these limitations to come into play unless both Nall and Holcomb are hurt.

I and virtually everyone else in the Bills' fan world felt that tagging and trading Antoine Winfield was the obvious thing to do. Nonetheless, TD let him walk. With a track record like that, maybe he would have let Nate Clements walk too. But let's say you're right, and TD would have tagged him. That tag can only get you two years out of a guy. After that, under the new collective bargaining agreement, a player becomes very expensive to keep. While a tagged Nate is better than a free agent Nate, it's not as good as a Nate locked up to a long-term deal. Both the Jets and the Vikings were absolutely in love with Antoine Winfield. By simply tagging and trading him, we easily--easily!--could have extracted a second round pick. Without Winfield on the roster, the Bills would have had the salary cap space with which to overpay for the aging (and now departed) Lawyer Milloy. TD was rarely willing to pay top dollar to any young player not named Mike Williams. From time to time, he did give extensions to quality players who were a step down: Schobel, McGee, maybe Crowell. But he didn't give extensions to the three players who would have had the top market value: Clements, Winfield, and Jennings. While I'll admit San Fran wildly overpaid for Jennings, I still think TD could have extended him in year 2 or 3. He's had his share of problems with both. After five years of TD's work, let's take a look at the roster he's built: OL: Gandy would be a good backup, Anderson wouldn't even be that, Teague's tank is empty, Villarrial's is empty enough, and Peters is unproven. Levy was given very little to work with in this area. QB: After five years of TD, the Bills' starting QB will be decided by the outcome of a three man competition. RB: McGahee is a solid player, but there's little depth at the position. WR: It's not clear whether Lee Evans can be the go-to guy, nor whether Parrish can step in and be the #2. TE: Question marks. FB: Average to below average DL: Schobel is the only starter-caliber player on the line Levy was given. LB: London Fletcher is getting on in years. Posey needs to be upgraded. Spikes, with his injury, is a question mark. Crowell could start. This unit could provide good play for a year or two, but it needs attention soon to start replacing guys like Fletcher. Secondary: Two starting caliber players in Clements and McGee, with Clements maybe not here for much longer. Nobody at safety. How many of TD's players can Marv confidently count on over the next 2 - 3 years? McGee, Crowell, Schobel, Evans, McGahee. Everyone else is either too old, too unsigned, too unproven, or too lousy. So those five guys are TD's core! That's pathetic.

I'm not trying to say that he's going to be a bust just because he did well at his workout. That said, the teams that do the best job at avoiding busts tend to be those which pay more attention to college play than to workout results. Based on college play, Justice doesn't deserve to come off the boards in the top 10.

You hit the nail on the head.

Marv Levy is the one who slapped the franchise tag on Nate. Nonetheless, it's not clear whether Nate will be here for much longer, and this is largely due to TD's failure to extend his contract. I've generally seen an unwillingness on TD's part to give extensions to the players who have the most market value (Antoine Winfield, Clements, Jennings, etc.) You can't build a team unless you're willing to retain your own high-level, young players. TD wouldn't pay the price. Nothing against Henry, but a 2nd round OL + Antowain Smith > Travis Henry. As for the 3rd round pick we got out of him at the end, the only reason we have that pick is luck. Who was to know that Travis would beg for a one-year extension based on poor financial management? I'll take the 3rd round pick, but I won't put it down to any brilliance on TD's part. Instead, TD seemed perfectly happy to go four and out with Henry, just as he did with Jennings. Maybe TD's mistake was drafting an injury-prone guy like Jennings. Maybe his mistake was not giving Jennings an extension after year 2 or year 3. Either way, TD went four and out with Jennings. What a long sentence! I agree that the switch to a new offensive system may have had something to do with why TD quickly lost interest in Henry. But I don't see the coaching changes as being responsible for the failure to give extensions to Jennings or Clements.

Erik Flowers was another player to soar up draft boards based on impressive workouts rather than his college play. I'll pass on Justice, especially at #8.