Orton's Arm

One thing I'll say about Losman is this: if you look at the total number of points scored when Losman was QB the second time around, and take away the points produced by the defense and return units, he averaged seven fewer points per game than Holcomb. (You take away the defense/return unit points for Holcomb too.) A difference of that magnitude provides strong evidence that Holcomb significantly outplayed Losman, even when just looking at Losman's second stint. Should the Bills take a QB in the first round? Certainly first round QBs can be busts, as perhaps evidenced by Losman himself. But offensive tackles taken fourth overall can be busts too. So can first round defensive ends drafted by GMs on their way to San Diego. I don't know that there's any such thing as a "safe" player position to draft. So yeah, if I'm Levy, I'm taking a long, hard look at all the options with the first round pick, including QB.

The Bills would actually have over $7 million in additional cap space by cutting Moulds. There are two things that would happen if the Bills kept Moulds: 1. Over $7 million of additional cap burden would be created because Moulds would be paid over $7 million in new money for 2006. 2. $1.7 million of existing cap burden (from money already paid to Moulds) would be pushed to 2007 instead of 2006. Let's say the Bills wanted #2 but not #1. They could talk to, say, London Fletcher, and ask him to convert the bulk of his 2006 salary into a signing bonus. It's no skin off London's back, because he'd be getting the same money, and he'd be getting it a few months sooner. Do this with enough players, and you've pushed $1.7 million of cap hit into 2007. The point I'm getting at is that it's the new money the Bills would have to pay Moulds--over $7 million--that determines his salary cap burden. No way is Moulds worth $7 million.

You seem to know a lot about Vince Young; and I tend to agree with your assessment of the Wonderlic. Your accusation of racism was inappropriate though. But other than the mud being flung back and forth, your post had a lot to offer.

It makes a lot more sense to compare Losman to Brees--which you've done--than to compare him to Eli Manning. We still don't know how good Eli Manning will turn out to be. In any case, it's easier if you spend your first year on the bench, because that gives you a chance to learn the playbook before being thrown to the wolves. Eli Manning didn't have that, while Losman and Brees did.

What?! People have given up on Losman?!

All right, Joe Montana wasn't a one-man football team, and he didn't win those rings all by himself. What is it exactly you guys are getting at?

Agreed. Moulds could probably make $3.5 million on the open market. But if we keep him, we're paying him $7 million in new money next year, and an additional $7+ million in 2007. Paying an aging player double what he's worth on the open market is a John Butler move.

Joe Montana lasted until the 3rd round largely because of his "noodle arm." He did okay, don't you think?

I didn't forget, I just chose a discount rate of zero. I understand your reasons for feeling a higher discount rate is in order, but I see things differently.

While we disagree about this issue, I feel the way you look at things is logical and internally consistent. You talk about using 2006 to build to success in 2007. Fair enough. But let's say Moulds gets cut at the end of 2006. We'd be bringing in a new WR in 2007 to take his place, getting the whole QB/WR chemistry thing going a year later than I'd like. But what about success in 2006? $7 million in new money for Moulds - $3 million in new money for Givens = $4 million potential cap savings, for each year that we have Givens instead of Moulds. I could be wrong, but $4 million a year sounds about what we'd have to pay to get Bentley: an excellent OL who's only been in the league four years. Bentley + Givens > Moulds. So the Bills would have a better record in 2006, and younger players to build on in 2007.

As of right now, $5.3 million of Eric Moulds credit card debt has been accumulated. By that I mean that over the years the Bills have given Moulds $5.3 million more in cash than what they've taken as Moulds salary cap hit. At some point they are required to even things out by taking $5.3 million more in salary cap hit for Moulds than the cash they pay to Moulds. Option 1: cut Moulds $5.3 million cap hit - $0 in new money = $5.3 million in debt paid. Option 2: keep Moulds $10.8 million cap hit - $7.2 million in new money = $3.6 million in debt paid, and $1.7 million carried over to 2007. Option 2A: cut Moulds at the end of 2006: Cap hit in 2007: $1.7 million. Total additional cap hit for just one more year of play: $7.2 million. Option 2B: keep Moulds through 2007: Cap hit in 2007: $8.9 million. ($7.25 million in new money + $1.7 million in debt paid) Total additional cap space used for two years of play: $14.4 million. There's no way that one extra year of Moulds is worth $7.2 million against the cap, nor that two extra years of Moulds are worth $14.4 million. The last time he broke 1100 receiving yards was back in 2002, and he's averaged 880 receiving yards the last three years. No paycut = no Moulds.

You make a persuasive case, JDG, but I'm going to disagree. First off, Kelly is right to look at new cash out. If Moulds gets $7 million of new cash this year, then sooner or later the Bills will take an additional $7 million salary cap hit. You say that salary cap space in 2007 is worth less than cap space in 2006. Certainly that's true if 2007 is an uncapped year! But assuming there will be a cap, you could make a strong case that 2007's salary cap space is more valuable, dollar per dollar, than 2006 cap space. This isn't traditional economics, where you seek to maximize the value of the discounted cash flow over the life of an investment. The goal here is to win the Super Bowl, which means that cap space in a potential Super Bowl year (like 2007) is in a different category than cap space in a non-Super Bowl year like 2006. So the question becomes: should the Bills take a $7 million salary cap hit on Moulds by keeping him another year? (I grant that the $7 million is spread out over several years, but eventually that whole $7 million in new money will hit the cap.) Or do the Bills take a bath on Moulds, and sign a guy like Givens for a much lower yearly salary? Getting rid of an aging and highly overpaid Moulds will free up cap space for free agents along the OL in 2006, while at the same time getting Moulds off the books for 2007.

I'm not aware of Modrak having turned down any opportunities to advance to a GM spot. I remember a few years ago him interviewing for one, and not getting the position. In fact, that happened at least twice, IIRC.

"That injury wasn't a great start" has never before been used to describe the career of a Bill wearing #11!

Obviously the Bills need to evaluate all their options this draft, including taking a QB with their first pick, trading down, trading up, or staying put. It's important to look at the situation objectively, without allowing team needs to influence how you evaluate any given player's chances of success in the NFL. To prepare for the future, it's best to learn from the past. Back in 2000, the Bills chose not to trade up for Pennington. The Bills thought they had their QB of the future on board with Rob Johnson, and anyway their needs were on defense. Erik Flowers was taken in the first, Tavares Tillman in the second, and Corey Moore in the third. Taking Rivers when they already had Brees hurt the Chargers a lot less than the Bills' failure to take Pennington hurt the Bills. Had we taken Pennington, we could have saved ourselves the first rounder traded for Drew, the first, second, and fifth rounders used on Losman. Barring injury, the Bills would have a proven QB right now, instead of still being unsure if the QB problem has been solved. What lessons can we learn from this? 1. Don't reach for a player simply because he fills a need. 2. Don't make too many assumptions about what you don't need until a player proves himself. 3. If a player stands out from his peers on your boards, do what you can to take him. I'd also like to throw in another random piece of advice: if the draft is deep at a given position, it's usually a good idea to take advantage of that position. Eric Moulds was drafted in a year known for its receivers. The same could be said of Andre Reed. Plenty of QBs were drafted in the first round when Jim Kelly was taken. This year is going to be deep along the offensive line. If the Bills don't draft at least two OL, it's a lot more likely this draft will be a failure.

I don't like that draft. Only one OL, in a year with deep, rich OL quality. Those two picks in the third should both be OL.

Let's say an offensive guard never won the big one. Would this make his career a failure in your eyes?

Andre also left the Bills on a sour note.

Or it could signal something else. Let's say you were Levy, and you didn't know one way or the other whether Losman would work out, but you felt confident Cutler was the next Marino. And let's say you had serious questions about the other players the Bills might take at #8--Ngata et al. I'm not saying Levy does think these things or should think these things, just that we should be open to all the possibilities.

Marv wasn't involved in the decision to draft Losman. Already, Jauron's decision to have an open competition at QB signals a lower level of commitment to Losman than Mularkey's decision to simply hand him the QB job. Then there's a question as to whether Losman's mobility would be as big an asset to Fairchild's offense as it was intended to have been for the Mularkey/Clements offense. Then there were Losman's struggles in 2005. The point I'm getting at is that Levy could credibly instill a sense of doubt about the Bills' intentions in the first round. Let's say Cutler fell to #7, and Levy didn't have any plans of taking him at #8. Why not force some team to trade up one spot ahead of the Bills to take Cutler, so that some other player falls to us?

Looks like its bye-bye Eric: http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060...?tbd1017784.asp

I see where this thread is going, and I don't like it. If either you or the Dean feels the need to throw additional mud at me, please do so over at the "What should the Bills have done at QB after the 2003 season" thread. This thread is pretty good, and I don't want it spoiled by the fact that I don't see eye to eye with the two of you. My apologies to everyone except the Dean for responding in-kind to his personal attack.

Expecting the Dean to attempt to look at any of my posts through an honest lens, and to actually consider that I might be trying to share a little knowledge, is expecting FAR too much, I'm afraid. He would rather sidetrack the discussion in an attempt to deliver a cheap shot instead of engaging in an honest exchange of information. It's his MO.

I know what he meant--revising for the purpose of promoting a dishonest or inaccurate point of view. But revisionist historians of, say, pre-1066 England will tell you that they're adopting a revised view of things merely because their interpretation of things is different than the one traditionally accepted. In some cases the traditional view will be correct, in some the revisionist view will be correct, and maybe sometimes they'll both be wrong. Using the term "revisionist" in the pejorative sense is unfair to many honest historians. It's just so broad a term. Yes, it encompasses those who deny Nazi Germany gassed the Jews. It also encompasses Marxists historians who claim the Puritans came to America "for cod not God." And it encompasses many historians between these two extremes. They're all lumped together under the "revisionist" label, so equating this label with dishonesty throws the baby out with the bathwater.

FYI: "revisionist" is considered a descriptive (as opposed to negative) term among historians. For instance, American historians had traditionally had a negative view of the Japan that existed centuries ago. This view was colored by Pearl Harbor. But the revisionist view is that the Japan of centuries ago had many more positive qualities than had been acknowledged. Any non-traditional view of any period of anyone's history is by definition revisionist. Now to address your points. I agree the Bills were in the middle of a salary cap mess when TD arrived. Since they were in rebuilding mode too, it made sense to cut older, expensive players. Guys like Fina and Flutie. But you try to hang onto your younger players, so that when you emerge from the salary cap mess, you still have some core left from the previous GM. Take the Travis Henry pick. The Bills had Antowain Smith, a player who is still in the league. Why use a 2nd round pick trying to upgrade Smith when you don't have an offensive line? From the point of view of finding player talent, the 2001 draft was arguably TD's best. Let's look at what's happened to the four best players TD found in 2001: - Nate Clements: franchised, long-term status uncertain. - Jonas Jennings: allowed to hit free agency after just four years. - Travis Henry: made expendable by the McGahee pick, traded away when nobody wanted a RB. - Aaron Schobel: locked up to a long-term deal. With just one of his four best 2001 draft picks locked up to a long-term deal, TD didn't do a very good job retaining the value he'd created. Even the fact the Bills got a 3rd round pick for Travis Henry had more to do with Henry needing money (and hence signing a one year extension) than with any big picture strategy on TD's part. TD did an even worse job retaining the value Butler had found, as I mentioned earlier. You can blame a lot of that on the salary cap mess, and rightly so. But not all of it. Butler was probably no better of a talent evaluator than TD. But Butler did a better job of keeping the players he'd found, and keeping the coaching staff intact. These two sources of continuity allowed Butler to build up the team, and to get into the playoffs despite the occassional Butler mistake.