Orton's Arm

2) I agree Brown is a train wreck. But letting Levitre walk was the right decision. Players on specific units compare their contracts with each other. If a player knows he's the most valuable guy on the DL, for example, he's going to want a contract that's significantly larger than the second-most valuable DL's. The Titans vastly overpaid for Levitre. Had the Bills offered to overpay Levitre by an even greater margin, then that would have driven up the price tag for Wood and Glenn. The correct solution to the problem at LG is to use a 2nd or 3rd round draft pick on Levitre's replacement. 4) I agree Spiller had a bad day. That said, neither his OL nor his offensive coordinator did him any favors at all. Spiller is a race car, and Hackett is playing him like he's a dump truck. If the Bills could get a real LG and a real offensive coordinator, I'd expect Spiller's production to come a lot closer to what he achieved last year. 7) I agree Manuel had a lousy game. 8) Stevie Johnson is one of the best players on the team. His occasional penalties and other lapses are frustrating. But this team isn't exactly bursting with talent. On the rare occasions when we do attain a talented, productive player, we should emphasize the positive more strongly than the negative. 10) I wish the Bills had used the 3rd overall pick on A.J. Green rather than Dareus. 13) I completely agree that the Bills should give more chances to Woods. I'd also like to see them ease Easley into the starting lineup. I guess the theory behind Graham is that it's best to have a deep burner to open up the underneath stuff. I agree with the theory, but not necessarily with Graham being the guy to make that theory work.

The NFL generally bases these stats on yards gained, or yards allowed, over the course of a game. Due to the Bills' no-huddle offense, there will be more plays per game than would have been the case had they huddled. Artificially boosting the number of plays per game makes the offense look better than it should, and the defense look worse than it should. At this point, I believe that the defense is the stronger of the two units; and that this strength would be apparent in the rankings if it wasn't for the no huddle.

This is what's driving the endless media shilling!

We're talking about a rookie QB in his very first start, going up against a Belichick defense. Manuel had also missed significant practice time due to an injury. And it's not as though Manuel ran the world's most complex offense in college. The coaches made the decision to keep the offense simple--to keep the training wheels on. Maybe that was the wrong call. But they know a lot more about Manuel and his development than I do. If he wasn't ready for something more complex--and he may well not have been--then keeping the training wheels on probably gave the team its best possible chance to win. If you want to fault some aspect of the coaching, start with the coaching staff's failure to play to Spiller's strengths, or put him in a position to succeed.

From what I'm hearing, your emotional attachment to the Bills comes only because you live close to Buffalo. You'd stop being a fan--or else would become a much less emotionally-attached fan--if you ever moved out of the area.

I fully agree that both Spiller and Johnson played poorly today. But they've established track records as good players. We know that what we saw today wasn't the real deal with either of them. On the other hand, Hackett is untested as an NFL offensive coordinator. Yes, it's only one game. And maybe the coaching will look better once the players are more familiar with the new system. Also, Hackett himself may learn from his mistakes. But I still would have been much more encouraged by a good offensive coaching performance than with a bad one.

Good post Bill. A few thoughts of my own. 1) Coaching matters. This year's defense seems head and shoulders above what we saw last year. I like Pettine a lot more than Wannestadt! 2) That said, I'm still concerned about the run defense. 3) Manuel played better than I'd expected. 4) Thus far, I have serious doubts about whether Hackett can hack it. 5) I'll grant that both Spiller and Stevie Johnson had bad games. That said, they're both better players than they showed today. Also, in Spiller's defense, New England was keying on him. And it's not like Hackett created a brilliant game plan to exploit Spiller's strengths.

> over the past dozen years don't they have the best record in the NFL? I'm not willing to do the research either, but your statement seems like it's probably true. > You are suggesting that just because they don't at the end of a football season raise the SB trophy against > the field of the 31 other teams that they have not lived up to one's expectation? What I'm suggesting is that in the early 2000s, they did a very good job of drafting/other talent acquisition. Their top-5 scoring defense was a reflection of that. But somewhere along the way, their talent acquisition became less impressive. Draft day successes still occurred, but became more rare. The fact that it's been eight years since the Patriots won the Super Bowl is a symptom. The slowdown in talent acquisition is the underlying problem. The 2006 draft demarcates the beginning of the slowdown in talent acquisition. Their best player from that draft was Laurence Maroney. Maroney's career lasted six years, and he never had more than six starts in a season. Their cubboard for the 2007 draft was likewise bare. The best player from that draft was Brandon Merriweather. He played four years for the Patriots before bouncing around the league as a backup. The 2008 draft was better, because at least the Patriots got Jerod Mayo. The Patriots' 2009 draft was better than usual. They got Pat Chung, a safety who's a starter more often than a backup. They also got Vollmer, a starting OT. They also got a few backups. Their 2010 draft was also good. Highlighted by Rob Gronkowski, it also brought them Aaron Hernandez, Devin McCortney, and Brandon Spikes. The best player from their 2011 draft was Solder, a starting OT. It's too soon to evaluate their more recent drafts. The Patriots experienced draft day successes from 2006 - 2011. But were there more and better successes than an average NFL front office would have achieved? Take the Bills' front office for example. During that same period, we drafted Kyle Williams, Marshawn Lynch, Stevie Johnson, Eric Wood, Jairus Byrd, Leodis McKelvin, Andy Levitre, C.J. Spiller, Alex Carrington, and Aaron Williams. Few would claim that the Bills were building a dynasty from 2006 - 2011. If the Patriots' drafting during that span was no better than the Bills', then it's not clear to me they had drafted well enough to sustain a dynasty. The Bills' drafts were usually good under Polian. But once Polian was replaced by Butler, there was a significant drop-off in our drafts' quality. Nevertheless, we remained a playoff contender for years. This was due to the combination of holdovers from the Polian era + the talent Butler did manage to add + free agent signings. The Bills had built a reputation for winning; making them an attractive destination for free agents who wanted to be part of a winning club. I think the Patriots may be in a simiar situation now that the Bills were in in the late '90s. But the fact that they still have Tom Brady--and that he's playing at a high level--means they inherited more talent from their talent-building era in the early 2000s than the late '90s Bills had inherited from Polian.

Maybe he has bumblefoot. ********** Bumblefoot (ulcerative pododermatitis) is a bacterial infection and inflammatory reaction on the feet of birds and rodents. . . . Bumblefoot is, perhaps, the largest cause of referral of birds of prey to a veterinary surgeon. . . . This is mostly caused by inappropriate perching (or perching for too long) *********** See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblefoot_%28infection%29

Good post. > What TD said he was trying to do was inject some instant credibility and enliven a very weary fan base. With TD, there was always a rationalization for emphasizing the short term over the long run. He squandered a first round pick on another team's aging backup QB because we as fans needed to be "enlivened." He used a second round pick on Travis Henry; despite Henry not providing a significant upgrade over Antowain Smith. Just two years later, he used a first round pick on yet another attempt to upgrade the RB position. When you don't have a long-term plan, or a clear picture in your head of what you want to build, it's easy to get sidetracked by shiny things. That was always the story with TD. > One move that he made that really got me off of his bandwagon was when he gratuitously let Pat Williams go. By the time TD let Pat Williams go, Williams had become an older player. Normally DLs that age would quickly start to decline. For whatever reason, Williams was able to continue playing at a high level for several years after having been released. A bigger concern for me personally was when he let Antoine Winfield walk in order to sign Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy. TD didn't even slap the franchise tag on Winfield; so we got nothing when he went to the Vikings. One of the absolute worst, most shortsighted things a GM can do is to use a first round pick on a DB, let him go first-contract-and-out, then use another first round pick on his replacement. > What the Pats have done exceptionally well is expand the life span of the cycle. That is a remarkable accomplishment. Tom Brady is as good as, or better than any quarterback in the league except for Aaron Rodgers. If you compare the Patriots to other teams with elite QBs, it becomes a contest to see which team can build his QB the best supporting cast. For the past eight Super Bowls, the Patriots have not finished first in that contest. Some teams--such as the Steelers and Ravens--have been able to win Super Bowls during that span despite having inferior QBs to Brady. To achieve these Super Bowl wins, those other teams had to be better than the Patriots at non-QB positions in order to compensate for the Patriots' advantage at QB. It's not like the Patriots are competing with all 32 teams for the Lombardi Trophy. Most teams don't have franchise QBs, and are not serious Super Bowl contenders. For the most part, their only serious competition is from other teams which have QBs at or near the franchise level--about eight teams or so. Winning three Super Bowls in the span of four years is indeed a remarkable accomplishment; made more remarkable by the fact that Brady had not yet reached his peak. They'd done a great job of assembling talent at the non-QB positions; especially on defense. The Patriots' coaching staff also did an exceptional job. The plans Belichick put together for beating the Bills were works of brilliance. But somewhere along the way that team's talent level declined, especially on defense. Even the coaching staff may not be what it once was. For example: Fitzpatrick put up a ton of points on the Patriots. Just a week or two later, the Bengals' defense unveiled the correct blueprint for exposing Fitzpatrick for what he was. Normally, Bill Belichick would be the one to reveal the correct way to beat a Bills' QB. But he squandered the opportunity to do that with Fitzpatrick. Fluid intelligence--the ability to adapt to new situations--declines with age. Maybe Belichick has less fluid intelligence today than he did back when he drew up defensive plans for the Bills/Giants Super Bowl. And maybe the Patriots as an organization are less adept at talent acquisition today than they'd been back when they built a top-5 scoring defense to go along with Tom Brady.

Apology accepted. Likewise, I apologize if some of what I wrote was one-sided. I fully agree that we should demand greatness from our own team; and respect greatness in whichever NFL teams it might occur. I've often wished that the Bills' front office would show more intellectual rigor; like what we see from the Patriots. The Bledsoe trade exemplified TD's search for the quick fix; and the Patriots' focus on the long term. But just as I subject the Bills to a high standard of critical scrutiny when I evaluate them, I also subject the Patriots to that same standard. They've done a lot right, and I'm not going to take away from that. But they are not perfect. The last Super Bowl they won took place in 2005 (2004 season). While I greatly respect the magnitude of their accomplishments, I don't think it's appropriate to be awed by them. The appropriate attitude toward the Patriots is the one the Giants had before the first Giants/New England Super Bowl matchup. In a nutshell, their attitude was, the Patriots are a very good team. We can be at least as good. We can beat them. But that kind of thinking won't work if it occurs only on game day. Everyone in the organization, from the top down, needs to think that way all the time.

I did some more research about this. A number of well-known football people stated that the Patriots' cheating probably didn't give them any significant advantage. I'm now much more open to the possibility that the Patriots would have won all three of those Super Bowls even without cheating. I continue to believe that the Patriots are not adding young talent at a fast enough pace to sustain their dominance. That in no way detracts from the impressiveness of what they accomplished since 2000; nor the impressiveness of what they're likely to achieve between now and Brady's retirement. But these next few seasons probably mark the end of an era.

If Carpenter gets a good hit on someone, the announcers should say, "Carpenter lays down the hammer!"

Another Carpenter quote: "I'm looking forward to the chance to work with Wood." Okay, I'm not sure if he said that or not. But if he didn't, he should have.

Below is a (partial) list of things GMs or coaches could do to give their team an unfair edge: Encouraging their players to injure opponents (like the Saints did) Videotaping the other team's signals Contacting soon-to-be free agents to start negotiating (tampering) Making steroids available to players, and helping them avoid detection Some of these things could be done quietly. For example, let's say a non-Bills team contacted Byrd, and began dropping hints about possible contracts. This would be tampering and against the rules. But it wouldn't be in Byrd's interest to expose the rules violation. Due to the difficulty of detection, it's reasonable to suppose tampering may be rather common. But if we're assuming the Patriots' Super Bowl opponents are guilty of such tampering until proven innocent, we have to make the same assumption about the Patriots as well. Other rules violations are easier to detect. If there's a bounty system put in place for injuring players, all it would take would be one disgruntled ex-player or ex-coach to blow the lid on the whole thing. With a bounty system or a steroid program, it's hard to prevent every player and coach from becoming aware of the program. That's a lot of potential leaks. The reason the Patriots' cheating came to light is because they used cheating against the Jets. Some of the Jets' coaching staff were former Patriots coaches; and knew to look for cheating/video taping. The fact that other teams didn't know to look for video taping suggests to me that the Patriots' method of cheating was uncommon; and gave them an advantage other teams simply didn't have.

> If there is any belief still that the Pats "cheating" was the primary cause for their greatness, such belief should have waned by now You are arguing against a straw man. My post stated that if Team X beats Team Y by a margin of 3 points, and if Team X cheated, the cheating may well have affected the outcome of the game. That logic is just as applicable to the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins as it would be to any other game in which cheating occurred. As you correctly pointed out, the Patriots still achieved a lot after the cheating stopped. Even without the cheating, they still would have been a very impressive team. No one is arguing otherwise.

> The basis for the majority of responses is childish jealousy. Which is why most of your responses have solely addressed the childish jealousy you perceive, while ignoring any factual points which had been raised. Some of your posts in this discussion--such as your description of Kraft's objections to Parcells--were good, solid contributions. You should add more posts like those, while eschewing information-free posts which add nothing to the discussion beyond your own complaints. > If you believe that cheating was a major factor in the Pats winning SBs that is your prerogative. I don't accept that notion. Speaking of information-free posts, I see no explanation here as to why you dismiss the impact of cheating in the Patriots' three Super Bowl wins. A while ago, I read an article about Jimmy Johnson and the Dallas Cowboys. In the week leading up to the second Bills/Cowboys Super Bowl, he'd been watching television, and happened to see video footage of a Bills' practice. He saw us practicing a particular kind of screen pass. He therefore prepared his team to defend against exactly that kind of pass. Later on he commented on how happy he'd been that he'd been watching television at that time. Given that the Cowboys won that Super Bowl by a score of 30-13, I'm confident the Bills would still have lost even if Jimmy hadn't seen nationally televised footage of a Bills practice. But if a team had known what its opponent was going to do before every single play, and if its margin of victory was only three points, then it is absolutely absurd to dismiss the possibility that cheating changed the outcome of the game. You are a smart guy. Smart people are most likely to embrace stupid conclusions when they've allowed emotion to affect the clarity of their thought processes. That's exactly what you are guilty of here. I actually have some sympathy for your perspective. If someone with an anti-Patriots bias posts something obviously inaccurate, that irritates me as much as it irritates you. But a blind reaction against that anti-Patriots bias is no more conducive to accuracy than the anti-Patriots bias itself. There is only one reliable way to be accurate. It's to relentlessly pursue the truth, while ignoring emotion, and ignoring the distraction of other people's biases.

> What is being discussed and how it is being discussed in this thread is a far cry from critically analyzing a winning team. Once again you are painting with a broad brush. The above-quoted text is only true of some of the criticisms of the Patriots in this thread. > For me, not for a lot of others, the notion that the Pats cheating was a major contributor to their success is an absurdity. In each of their Super Bowl wins, the Patriots' margin of victory was exactly three points. Do you think that knowing what the other team was going to do before they did it could have changed the outcome of a three point game? I have a lot of respect for the intellectual rigor with which Bill Belichick conducts himself. So much so that I bought and read Patriot Reign. But I don't think there's any room for reasonable debate about whether the Patriots' cheating might have affected the outcomes of their three point Super Bowl wins. Had the Bills cheated their way to a three point Super Bowl win, I'd be saying the exact same thing. In case you doubt my impartiality, bear in mind that I think the Home Run Throwback had been officiated correctly. (As painful as that is for me to write.) Without the cheating, the Patriots would still have been a very successful organization. "Successful" would still mean five Super Bowl appearances. But it would probably mean fewer than three Super Bowl wins. Five appearances, plus an unknown number of Super Bowl wins, is a very respectable record of accomplishment. > You can criticize the successful Pats organization all you want. What is there to criticize? The previous ten years have been very good for the Patriots. Will the next ten be equally good? They do not have an heir apparent for Tom Brady. They do not seem to have a large core of young, talented players. (If you disagree with that, please name the players you feel constitute their young core.) Once Brady retires, they will probably go into rebuilding mode. There's no shame in that. Most dynasty teams go into rebuilding mode after enough of their star players retire. We as Bills fans are so conditioned to the Patriots dominating the division--and dominating us--over such a long period of time, that it's easy to conclude their dominance will last forever. But I don't see them adding the young talent they'd need to add to make that dominance permanent. > I'm sure you may find my attitude a tad bit sanctimoneous but I prefer building oneself up rather than knocking the other guy down. I also prefer building myself up to knocking the other guy down. I realize you feel frustrated with those who have the opposite perspective. So do I. But you are responding more strongly to your justified feeling of frustration than to the nuance and meaning of what's actually being written. Much of what's been written about the Patriots, both now and in the past, has been the result of the desire to tear the other guy down; or else based on wishful thinking about the imminent demise of the Patriots. But to instinctively lump all criticism of the Patriots into that category does a disservice to the discussion. If you think the individual points I've raised--such as the Patriots not acquiring young talent fast enough to stay dominant, or nor acquiring an heir apparent to Tom Brady--are incorrect, then by all means refute them. If you're right and I'm wrong, I'd be happy to be refuted. It would be a chance to learn something new. But blanket statements, condemning all criticism of the Patriots organization, are not informative.

> The essence of the discussion is that the losers rationalize why winners win and make excuses why they lose. It's pathetic. You're painting with an awfully broad brush. Yes, there's been some rationalization and excuse making in this thread. But there's been at least as much critical analysis of the Patriots' strengths and weaknesses. Have they been a better team than the Bills over the last ten years? Absolutely. No one is disputing that. Is it impressive to achieve five Super Bowl appearances--including three wins--over the course of a decade? Yes. But if you compare them to other dynasty teams with multiple Super Bowl wins, the biggest difference is that no one knows if the Patriots would have won even a single Super Bowl had it not been for the cheating. There are two possible ways that one can allow one's perspective as a Bills fan to create bias. One way is the way you've pointed out. To engage in excuse making, or to attempt to explain away the fact that the Patriots have been a much better team than the Bills over the last ten years. It's also possible to fall into the opposite error. To act as if we, as fans of a losing football team, somehow lack the right to critically analyze a winning team. To fall into the latter error is every bit as absurd as succumbing to the former.

Yes he can! *********** [Dick] Jauron chose the NFL, and started at free safety as a rookie for the Lions. He was named to the 1974 Pro Bowl in his second season after leading the NFC in punt return average. Jauron played with the Lions for five seasons (1973–1977) and the Cincinnati Bengals for three seasons (1978–1980). He finished his playing career with 25 interceptions and two touchdowns.[8] . . . Jauron was named the 14th head coach in Buffalo Bills history on January 23, 2006, following the resignation of Mike Mularkey.[14] **********

I'm just trying to envision Carpenter's press conferences. Several weeks ago: "I think the Dolphins have a great long-term plan in place, and I'm excited to be part of that plan." Two weeks ago: "I'm not happy about being cut by the Dolphins. But at least I've landed on my feet, and can prepare for my future as a New York Jet." One week ago: "I'm looking forward to a long career as an Arizona Cardinal." Today: "I couldn't be happier to be a Buffalo Bill. This franchise is moving in the right direction, and I expect to be part of that for many years to come."

I agree with your general point, but not necessarily with all your examples. The Cowboys of the '90s were stacked with talent. They had so much talent that even a talking monkey could have won a Super Bowl with that team. Which Jerry Jones proceeded to prove by firing Jimmy Johnson and hiring Barry Switzer. Vince Lombardi and Bill Walsh were much better football coaches than Jimmy Johnson.

A while ago, the 49ers beat the Chargers in the Super Bowl by a score of 49-24. Had the Patriots won their Super Bowls with margins like that, there'd be no need to ask whether cheating affected the outcome of the game. But for narrow Super Bowl victories, you really have to wonder if cheating gave them that extra boost they needed. In the 2001 Super Bowl, the Patriots beat the Rams by three points. In the 2004 Super Bowl, the Patriots beat the Panthers by three points. In the 2005 Super Bowl, the Patriots defeated the Eagles by three points. If you knew the other team's signals, might that cause a different outcome in a moderate number of plays per game? Yes, it might. And might those plays cause a swing of more than three points? Absolutely! As far as I'm concerned, all three of the Patriots' Super Bowl wins have been tainted by cheating.

Overreact much? The OP is a former DB. He seems like he's focused on DB play the way Bill from NYC is focused on offensive line play. If the OL played horribly, I'd expect Bill to point it out. Given that the DBs played very poorly, there's nothing wrong with OCinBuffalo pointing that out.

> Hating on Nix and Jauron for this was flat out stupid. No it wasn't. The real stupidity was the Bills' decision to reach for Whitner. There were teams like the Broncos interested in moving up to our draft spot. No way was Whitner good enough to remotely justify passing up a trade like that. In some ways, the McKelvin pick was easier to justify than the Whitner pick. At least with McKelvin, the Bills were doing something the experts thought might be smart. Instead of doing something the experts knew was stupid, like picking Whitner 8th overall. Granted, neither player lived up to expectations; so with the benefit of hindsight both picks look about equally bad. Another objection to the Bills taking DBs early is that when a guy does work out, the Bills typically let him walk after his first contract. Antoine Winfield went first-contract-and-out. Nate Clements went first-contract+1 year-and out. Greer left in free agency shortly after the Bills drafted McKelvin. Byrd looks like he has one foot out the door. Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on DBs. Granted, that's not as bad as using 25% of your first picks of the draft on RBs. (Which they've done also.) But it's still too much. One of the reasons they've poured so many picks into the secondary over the years is because they want to have a good #1 CB, but don't want to do what it would take to sign their best DBs to extensions. If the Bills used a first round pick on an Antoine Winfield every ten years or so, and kept him locked up as a Bill for the guy's entire career, I'd be happy. But there have been far too many first-contract-and-out DBs, DBs as busts, DBs who were reaches, etc. Under the right circumstances, I'm perfectly okay with the Bills using a first round pick on a DB. The Gilmore pick is a good example of that. Or will be, if the Bills don't let him go first-contract-and-out. But these first round DBs must be taken as part of a disciplined, long-term team building strategy. Letting first round DBs go first contract and out, so that they can be replaced by fresh first round, first contract and out DBs, does not represent a disciplined strategy.