Orton's Arm

Johnson also had mobility, albeit not as much as Losman. I'm not trying to say I'm 100% sure that Losman is a bust, but I just don't see as much reason to hope as some others do.

Was it this academic institution that taught you to throw insults at people while refusing to address the points they've raised? I mean, your contribution to this discussion has been less than zero. Zero is not saying anything at all. Less than zero is contributing nothing--which you've done--while using up time that could better have been spent elsewhere. As for my "condescending tone"--if you want my respect, maybe you should try earning it. Just a thought. You have literally contributed not a single intelligent idea to this thread. It's one thing to offer opinions--which you've certainly done. Offer enough opinions, and some of them are bound to be right. But it's something else again to support an opinion with intelligent reasoning or factual information. This, you have utterly failed to do. Maybe you did it in that fancy school you went to, and that's great for you. But I haven't seen whatever brilliant essays or great research papers that got you through that school. I've only seen a bunch of garbage posts, and an unwillingness or inability to argue with any tool other than the personal attack. Your performance on this thread has been a complete, total, and unmitigated disgrace.

The bottom line is that Losman has shown neither the high QB rating/completion percentage/etc. of Johnson, nor the ability to get rid of the ball quickly of Flutie.

Of course the media outlets picked it up at the time. How do you think I heard about it? But the ones that did don't seem to have archived their content that far back, or else my Google search was flawed.

Of course I'm trying to draw a parallel! You're correct to say it's not a 100% parallel, but the two situations sure are similar.

Agreed. I found a link that's a pretty good summary of TD's failures here in Buffalo: http://blogs.foxsports.com/patmoran2006/20...JiePTkTxcH7MX2Q

Too true. Of course, in 1998 we had the Johnson/Flutie controversy. Johnson was an unproven "QB of the future" that the Bills traded away strong draft position to acquire. Flutie was a savvy veteran who--before coming to Buffalo--was never quite able to make it as a starter in the NFL. Johnson had a bigger arm than Flutie. Johnson's supporters were excited about his deep passes. But Flutie got rid of the ball faster, and did a better job of adapting to the Bills' problems on the offensive line.

Apparently, letting things be is easier for some than for others!

That's fair. I looked for verification, but this was an obscure event--a trade that never happened--from many years ago. It's not like the fate of the world rests on getting to the bottom of this matter, so I'll just let things be.

What you're describing helps to keep veteran players from being displaced by cheaper rookies. It doesn't encourage teams to hold onto their own veterans versus signing other veterans from free agency. What 34-78 was suggesting was a system in which, if you kept a particular player a long time, the percentage of his salary that would count against the cap would grow smaller and smaller. If some other team tried to sign him, they'd start off counting 100% of his salary against their cap, so it would be hard to lose a player you wanted through a bidding war.

If you recall that time, San Diego and Buffalo were both interested in Rob Johnson. Butler offered Jacksonville a first and fourth round pick for the guy, but it was a deal that would expire quickly. Beathard didn't respond quickly, so Jacksonville had to take the bird in the hand (the Butler offer) or wait to see what San Diego would decide to offer. The Jaguars chose the former course; apparently believing that if San Diego didn't one up Buffalo right then, it might not do so at all. Later on, after Beathard had examined the situation more closely, he decided to offer Buffalo the 2nd pick in the draft for Rob Johnson.

I'm going to try to be patient with you here, and walk you through the system step-by-step. 1. Start with the total number of points the Bills scored. 2. Subtract the points scored by the defense and by the return units. Holcomb lost 14 points in the Bengals game alone through this step. Losman version 2? He didn't lose any points here. 3. Subtract 3 points from any scoring drive which started in field goal range. Two of Losman version 2's scoring drives started in FG range, so he loses six points. The same could be said about Holcomb. However, since Losman version 2 played in fewer games than Holcomb, this step hurts Losman v2 a little more. 4. Take away the points from drives where the QB made little or no contribution. Holcomb loses 3 points through this step. Losman version 2 doesn't lose any. All three points-per-game adjustments I made hurt Holcomb, but only one hurt Losman version 2. Even so, Holcomb still led the Bills' offense to an average of 7 more points per game than Losman version 2.

Restricted free agency only applies to draft picks who have been in the league less than four years. The idea is that even if a draft pick signs a short contract, the team that drafted him still has some kind of rights to the guy through year 4. Since Johnson was going into his fourth year (and was in the last year of his contract) this wouldn't have applied to him. The $25 million contract wasn't designed to make Johnson feel good--though I'm sure it had that effect! If Butler hadn't extended Johnson, Johnson would have hit free agency after the season had ended. If he doesn't re-sign with the Bills, we're out those draft picks. If he plays well and does re-sign, it would be because the Bills won a bidding war. Not good. If you're trading away that kind of draft value for a guy, you'd better make sure he's under contract for more than just one year. Johnson's play in the Jacksonville game was more than "pretty good." It was stellar; which is why teams were so eager to acquire him. After the Bills had obtained the rights to Johnson, San Diego offered us the 2nd overall pick in the draft for him. Butler refused, and San Diego would go on to use that pick on Ryan Leaf.

It depends on how much of that free cap space can be used to get the free agents you want. Sure, if Buffalo was the only place free agents could sign with, $30 million of cap space could easily translate into a winning team. But some players will take less money to be with a team that's better than 5-11, while others might be re-signed by their current teams before free agency starts. So yeah, if the Bills did sign those guys, things would look good. I just don't know how many of them we'll be able to really get. The Bills are eight proven players away from having nine proven players on the lines. Even assuming the best with regards to Preston and Peters, you're still not looking at a trenches situation that's much better than an expansion team's. Add to that the fact the Bills' safeties are over the hill, and that it's unknown if Takeo will fully recover. The offense has its share of questions marks too. Can Lee Evans be a #1? Is Roscoe Parrish going to work out? Will Willis bounce back from his slump? Can the Bills ever get production from the TE position? Will Losman be the QB TD hoped for when he drafted him? If you were a year or two into building up an expansion franchise, I'd expect to see a situation about equal to where the Bills are at right now.

Next season's going to be lousy no matter what the Bills do or don't do at WR.

I'd rather see Preston at C than G. It's unlikely the Bills will be able to get Bentley. How will Evans respond to being the #1 guy? If he acts like Peerless, you can always acquire a Moulds-type guy later on. If his response is more like Steve Smith's, well, problem solved.

The way I understand it, once Flutie started having success on the field, Butler gave him a new contract with a much higher rate of pay. At that point, two guys were getting paid like they were starters; putting the Bills in worse cap shape elsewhere. That big bonus for Fina (the year before TD cut him) didn't help either.

I agree with most of these cuts. I'd like to keep Burns, so as to focus attention elsewhere. I'd like to try to squeeze maybe another year out of Villarrial, maybe at a reduced rate. As for Eric Moulds: there's no way you keep him at his present salary. I think his contribution is somewhat overrated. Look at Bobby Shaw. When Moulds went down with an injury, Bobby Shaw stepped into the featured WR role, and piled up 800 receiving yards. He was cut the next year. The Bills could find another Bobby Shaw receiver, at a Bobby Shaw price, and not lose that much production. Then there's the Carolina example. Muhsin Muhammed was the Panthers' Eric Moulds, and Steve Smith was their Lee Evans. They ended up cutting Muhammed. The increased offensive focus on Smith caused him to produce more, not less. Lee Evans is a poor man's Steve Smith, so maybe the change would help him too.

I agree it was a bad idea to use up so much cap space on Flutie and Johnson. You're right about how the Bills probably could have won that Tennessee game if they'd had more salary cap room. But the Bills team that exists today isn't as good as the team that took the field against the Titans. This team's a few years away from being something good; and we should use that time finding the QB of the future. The fact there's a lot invested in Losman doesn't make him any more or less of a QB than he'd be if he was an undrafted free agent. If he can't get the job done (which is likely enough) it would take years before the Bills could fully recover. Think about how previous failed QBs of the future have hurt this franchise. Todd Collins couldn't get the job done, so the Bills used a 3rd round pick on Billy Joe Hobart. This was a move born of desperation. Later on, the Bills again attempted to address the QB position by trading a 1st and 4th rounder for Rob Johnson. Johnson failed, leaving the Bills in a weak bargaining position. This led to another desperation move: trading away a 1st round pick for Drew Bledsoe. Everyone talks about how it was either him or Jeff Blake. That may be true, but the Bills put themselves into that position of weakness. If Losman fails, will the Bills be as desperate as they were when Todd Collins and Rob Johnson failed? Perhaps. If it's a choice between drafting a great QB this year, or being desperate and drafting an iffy QB next year, I'll take the former.

You again. I see you're still on this whole "football sense" kick. It's too bad the numbers don't back up what your "football sense" was telling you. Earlier, you wrote there wasn't anything in particular wrong with JP's play, but the surrounding cast was the problem. I've shown how JP version 2 led the offense to 7 fewer points per game than Holcomb did. Given that Holcomb's play wasn't perfect either, don't you think that leaves considerable room for improvement in JP's play?

Yes. The Bills wouldn't have booted Bledsoe out of town so that a 7th round pick with no NFL experience could take the reins.

If the rest of your team is good enough, you can get by with merely being decent at QB. Holcomb's done a good job at turning lemons into lemonaide. I'm not saying a "win now" attitude will bring any Super Bowl rings. But with a good defense and a good OL, Holcomb could get you 9-7 or 10-6. A reasonable approach. If I were the Bills' GM, I'd be very willing to use a first day pick on a QB who seemed to have the potential for greatness. Then I'd sit him on the bench his rookie year, while Losman started. I wouldn't feel much confidence in Losman, because he's proven so little in college and in the pros. But hey, I could be wrong, and this would be Losman's chance to prove me wrong. If Losman impressed, he could continue starting in 2007. If not, I'd bench him in favor of the draft pick. Where does Holcomb fit in this picture? He's pretty much a win-now QB, but the Bills don't have the overall talent to win now. By the time the Bills get their non-QB positions in order, Holcomb won't be the same QB he is today. So if possible, I'd trade him for a draft pick.

That's not true: I don't judge a QB by the team's win/lost percentage. Also, Aikman was taken first overall. The things I saw that made me pick him that early would cause me to have a little more patience than maybe I'd have with a guy picked up in the 7th round. I just don't feel Losman proved he could be a good pocket passer in college, so a pro team shouldn't have the same level of faith in him as they'd have in an Aikman.

As I said earlier, there's no arguing with you.

First of all, this was Losman's second year. He had his whole rookie year to study the playbook, game film, etc. He's had two training camps, two summer offseasons, one and a half preseasons. So I'd expect to see a little more from him than from a true rookie. Still, the production on the field just hasn't been there--at least not yet. But I'm told we should give the guy time, and have a little faith. But faith in what? In TD's ability to make important decisions at QB? TD thought Losman would play as well in 2005 as Bledsoe would have. Obviously, TD was dead wrong about that. Before that, TD gave New England a 1st round pick for Bledsoe, when nobody else was willing to pay that kind of price. Bledsoe lasted only three years, including just half a year of very good performance. Before that, TD made the decision to let Neil O'Donnell hit free agency, on the basis that Kordell Stewart was the QB of the future. However, TD wasn't the Pittsburgh GM when the Steelers drafted O'Donnell in the first place. So there's little or no reason to put faith in TD's judgement about QBs. But what about other GMs around the league? The consensus seemed to be that there was a Big Three at QB in the 2004 draft: Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger. Mike Sherman in Green Bay liked Losman in the first round, but Sherman was soon stripped of his GM duties. The point I'm getting at is that the Bills shouldn't let overly optimistic expectations for Losman prevent them from drafting the QB of the future. If Losman works out, great. But there's no real reason to have faith in his doing so.