Orton's Arm

Supporting an NFL team just got a lot more expensive, thanks to the actions taken by 30 of the 32 teams. The owners should have--but did not--hold the line on the percentage of revenues players received. The owners' failure created a cost that teams like Washington and New England could afford, and that the Bills could not afford. You mention the idea of the Bills moving. One of the reasons for football's success, at both the college and professional levels, is its history and tradition. A losing team in a new city (think Arizona Cardinals) won't do as much good for the league as a losing team that stayed in place, such as the Bills. There will always be losing teams somewhere, so it's important to the league as a whole for such teams to attract the same fan interest the 5-11 Bills did. While revenue disparities exist among college teams, these disparities don't cause teams to move from one city to another. As a result, college football fans are able to develop lifelong emotional bonds with the teams they root for. This type of emotional bond is what's at stake with the new collective bargaining agreement. To the extent teams are forced to become nomadic mercenaries for hire by the most generous available city, fan loyalty to the league as a whole will gradually erode. This will hurt all the owners, including Dan Snyder and Jerry Jones.

Consider that A) many first-round picks end up being busts, and B) most draft sites had glowing profiles of these players in the year they were drafted. Think of all the glowing reviews you read about Mike Williams back when he was drafted. Obviously, what Ourlads is trying to do is to predict first round busts will be in advance of the draft. If they're right more often than not, they'll have increased their credibility in my eyes.

There's no inheritance tax for leaving the team to his wife, but once she passes away, the kids will be hit with a massive tax. Bearing in mind this solution could only work while Mary Wilson is alive, it's hard to know who Ralph would trust enough to take on the role of managing partner. Jim Kelly maybe, but he may be too caught up in his current activities to want the role of managing partner. I'd trust Frank Reich with my life, but he's too busy with his Christian ministry to have time for this. Off the top of my head, the best choice I can think of is--of all people--Alex Van Pelt. He's a) busy, b) busy with football-related things, c) appears loyal to Buffalo, d) appears willing to abandon his present activities if something better came along, and e) I think he's got a good head on his shoulders. I'm not saying he's the best available candidate--he may not be--but I'd like to see those five things from whichever person does get chosen for this role. Edit: you'd also want someone very trustworthy in this position. I think you could trust Van Pelt.

I've seen this happen in a few places myself. It's a shame.

What I like about Wilson is he has the courage to take a stand, even when others may not agree. In those owners meetings, a consensus seems to have emerged that the "compromise" CBA was the way to go. Wilson showed some backbone by voting against it, and now it's becoming clear that he, unlike most small-market owners, didn't allow himself to get taken advantage of. The crux of his argument is that, under the terms of the new CBA, it would be too tempting for a hypothetical Bills owner to move the team to a larger city. Say the Bills would be worth $500 million if kept in Buffalo, but $1 billion if moved to Los Angeles. Some guy could bid $900 million or more for the team with the intention of moving it to LA, as opposed to the maximum of $500 million that a loyal Buffalonian could bid. Once the team sold for $900 million, the interest expenses would force the new owner to move the team to someplace more lucrative. Wilson is evidently doing everything he can to avoid this scenario, and to ensure the Bills have their best possible chance of staying in Buffalo after his death. I for one hope he's successful.

You usually can't!

Apparently, what I've seen from the Dean has been very different from what you've seen. The Dean I know does hand out insults freely, and it's not just with respect to Losman. He accused someone of being a KKK member, merely because the guy said Moulds would make a rap video on his way out of Buffalo. In a discussion about affirmative action, the Dean portrayed those who saw the issue differently than him as right wing bigots. The Dean isn't capable of refraining from personal insults when the issue at hand is near and dear to his heart. Maybe your experience with him has been on topics that are less emotionally charged for him, when he is more able to be reasonable with those who see things differently.

They're off to a good start with Losman.

Well, I don't know about the kleenex, vaseline, or knocking one out, but I sure would hate to disappoint you when it came to the posting part!

You freely hand out insults to those who don't see the same potential in Losman you see. Just today, I noticed you announce that some sports writer would make a lousy GM, solely because he wanted the Bills to take a QB. This need to insult those who see Losman differently than you shows there can't really be intelligent discussion with you about this particular topic.

You read through 80 Q&A's to find this tidbit? You must really be desperate to make a case against me. I don't see how the quote helps you though. Bronstein is a reporter, and it's part of his job to ask people questions.

We had a good defense two years ago, not an elite defense. If you want to get away with not having a QB/passing game, a good defense isn't good enough. Just ask last year's Miami team--good defense, good running game, no QB, no playoffs. The Ravens were able to get away with not having a QB because their defense was insanely good. And yes, it would be as hard as I said to replicate that. The Ravens of 2000 went five straight games without an offensive TD. They actually won two of those games on the strength of their defense. They set an NFL record for fewest points allowed in a 16 game season. There was no room for average players on a defense like this, except maybe as backups. You look at any elite defense--Ravens of 2000, '85 Bears, the Steel Curtain--and very seldom do you see merely average players as starters. Typically you have to be at or near a Pro Bowl level to be in the starting lineup. If you want to be one of the stars of an elite defense, you need to be knocking on the door to the Hall of Fame.

I too would like to learn more about this system. Odds are that it "predicted" past success more often than not, just because of the way regression analysis works. It's basically a case of hindsight being 20/20. But while he's probably done a good job at isolating the factors which were correlated with past success, it remains to be seen whether these factors will predict future success also. If Rivers succeeds and Losman becomes a journeyman, it will be evidence in the system's favor.

Interesting that you bring up Dilfer. The Ravens team that won the Super Bowl had two things: a mediocre QB/offense, and an elite defense. Of those two halves of the winning equation, the Bills have done a great job with the first half, less so with the other half. Back in 2000, the Ravens went five straight games without an offensive touchdown. But their defense was so good they actually won two of those games. Some would ask why the Bills can't build the same kind of defense the Ravens had back in 2000. Fair enough. They'd need to upgrade both DT spots though. As well as both DE spots. London Fletcher is good, but not Ray Lewis in his prime good. So the MLB spot needs to be upgraded, as does Jeff Posey's spot. Clements and McGee are good CBs, but not as good as the CBs the Ravens had in 2000. Add two more positions to the upgrade list. Of course, the Bills need upgrades at safety as well. Assuming Takeo can fully recover from his injury, the Bills are just ten starters away from having the same defense the Ravens had back in 2000! Add in an offensive line capable of producing a 2000 yard rusher, and you've got the Ravens team that won the Super Bowl. As you can imagine, a Ravens-level of defensive dominance is difficult to achieve, and difficult to sustain. Despite the ridiculously good level of talent the Ravens of 2000 had, that core group of players only went to the Super Bowl once. But teams with good QBs--the Steelers of the '70s, '49ers of the '80s, Broncos of the '80s and '90s, Bills of the early '90s, and the Cowboys of the '90s--were able to go multiple times. While it's possible to win the Super Bowl without a good QB, you give yourself a much better chance by having one.

Agreed. He's using various college stats--such as games started, etc.--to try to predict NFL PAR. Lewin's system doesn't involve college PAR, except insofar as it may help him predict NFL PAR. But the main factors he's looking at to predict NFL PAR are the number of games started in college, and adjusted completion percentage.

From what I gather, the PAR system is what they use to rate past performance, much like some would use the QB rating or some other measure to rate past performance. What this guy is doing is using various college statistics to predict future QB success. I don't want to get too technical, but basically what this guy did was to use statistical tools to develop his system. He started by looking at how first round picks in the past have performed. He had to be able to put an exact number on each QB's performance, so he used PAR. He could easily have used some other quantitative measure--such as QB rating--as long as he had something with which to quantify the difference between a Drew Brees and a Trent Dilfer. Having quantified the success (or lack thereof) between the various QBs chosen early in the draft, he then proceeded to look at whether the college careers of the successful NFL QBs differed substantially from the college careers of the early round busts. It turns out that games started and adjusted completion percentage were the two most powerful indicators of whether past early-round QBs would be busts. Whether these factors will continue to be correlated with early-round QB success remains to be seen.

I see where you're coming from.

Nice that you can see both sides of the argument. Those more narrow-minded than you have labeled Prisco a lousy would-be GM on the basis of this one difference of opinion.

I know this doesn't involve Bills players, but I'd like to see Donovan McNabb fight Terrell Owens. Just because.

Was anything by Lewin included in last year's Pro Football Prospectus?

I went to Football Outsiders, where I found an article written by Lewin himself. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/ramblings.php?p=3774&cat=0 Lewin seems to have a good head on his shoulders, and isn't making wild claims as far as I noticed.

A hundred years ago, people rode horses and read by candlelight. You get progress by people trying new things, and seeing which ones work. This guy's developed a system. Maybe it's a contribution to the world of player evaluation, and maybe it isn't. We'll know more in a few years, after the system's been given a chance to prove its worth. I don't understand your hostility toward a guy who's simply trying to do his part to make football evaluation better.

http://www.niagara-gazette.com/sports/loca..._097220726.html In other words, after four more years of painfully watching Losman develop, we'll have ourselves Trent Dilfer. Assuming, of course, that Losman manages to do a better job of avoiding injuries than he's done so far. I wonder how Nall stacks up in this guy's system.

Try rereading my post. I never said Nall "has apparently beat out JP." I said it looks like Nall "may beat out JP." By that I meant that the coaches apparently think highly enough of Nall--or little enough of JP--that they're giving each player an equal number of snaps in this mini-camp, and an equal chance to win the starting QB position. If the coaches were convinced Losman had a brighter future than Nall, they'd want to give him more snaps to get him developed and used to the new offense.

I agree the Bills were in good cap shape under TD, and that's one of the very few things he did right. But it's a question of getting value per dollar spent. Much of the money TD saved by letting Antoine Winfield walk was spent overpaying for players like Lawyer Milloy. Most teams identify core players--quality guys at key positions they intend to keep for their whole careers. Orlando Pace. Peyton Manning. Tom Brady. Guys like that. Very seldom do you see a young, near elite player at a key position like CB hit free agency. That's why the Jets and Minnesota were both so desperate to sign Antoine Winfield--they knew an opportunity like that doesn't come around very often. Most teams are smart enough to hold onto their Antoine Winfields, never letting them hit free agency. You can hold onto the Antoine Winfields of the world and still stay under the cap. Butler's problem was that he overpaid for players like an aging John Fina, giving him far more than what he was worth on the open market. But while Butler was too generous with Ralph's money when it came to players with little value on the open market, TD was too stingy when it came time to retain the Bills' best draft picks. Some are inclined to let TD off the hook, saying there was little talent on the roster when he arrived. This, despite the fact the Bills had come 16 seconds away from a playoff win a year before his arrival. Fact of the matter is, there was talent on the roster: Peerless Price, Eric Moulds, Antoine Smith, Antoine Winfield, Pat Williams, Ted Washington, John Holocek, etc. While it's true the cap was a mess, and that some guys needed to go, TD got rid of too much young talent. Excusing TD because of the absence of Butler players on the roster is like excusing a man who shot his father, on the grounds that he's an orphan. TD chose to let Winfield walk, he chose to cut Antoine Smith to make room for his draft pick Travis Henry, he chose to part ways with guys like Bryce Fischer, John Holocek, Sam Cowart, etc. Sometimes TD used free agency to make good the player loss, and sometimes he tried the bargain basement approach.