Orton's Arm

And yet you call people morons based on their posts. The reading disability thing I could buy. I also agree that one person might have an aptitude for, say, engineering, while another might have more of a natural gift for music. But bear in mind that all the world's languages have a word for basic, generic intelligence. A word like "smart." The hope is to use a standardized test to give you a rough idea as to how smart this person is. The difference between you and Peters is that your test meant nothing to your future, so you acted accordingly. Yet you point to Peters' low score as a major reason why he might not have been drafted. Just a guess, but if you knew millions of dollars were on the line, you would have showed up sober for that test. Well, at least this time you're putting more thought into insulting me than merely labeling me a moron. As long as we're making employment decisions based on this discussion board, would you welcome an employee who had the habit of expressing disagreement by insulting the intelligence of those with whom he disagreed? If you feel I've failed to see things from your point of view, perhaps you should take a look in the mirror to see whether you might have better expressed yourself with a little more logical reasoning, and fewer personal insults. Speaking of looking in the mirror, consider your statement my beliefs are rigid. I've often noticed that when someone expresses a point of view with which you disagree, you're quick to call them a moron. I can't imagine any way to be less open to other points of view. You say I miss the point of discussions. Well, sometimes the point I feel needs to be made is different than the one you might like to focus on. You seem to be saying that if you're convinced X is the critical issue, and I'm convinced Y is what's really important, that you're right and I'm wrong. You're convinced I lack intellectual creativity. You are of course entitled to your own opinion. But in this case, your opinion only means so much given your tendency to look down on others with different points of view. A way of looking at things that some might find creative, or outside the box, you might see as contrived, ridiculous, or missing the point. An excellent example of this is the recent discussion of the Rooney Rule. To the best of my recollection, you did not once acknowledge that there might have been even a shred of intellectual merit or sane thinking among any of those with whom you disagreed. Because of behavior such as this, I find it very difficult to believe you can be objective when evaluating the intellectual or creative merit of ideas or thinking processes with which you disagree. What really matters is how Peters will respond in the heat of battle, with defensive coordinators trying to confuse him with complex blitz schemes. The coaches have had little opportunity to evaluate Peters in such conditions. In any case, I find it difficult to believe someone with that low of a Wonderlic score would provide consistently good mental performance on the field. If you can find me several Pro Bowl offensive tackles who got single digit Wonderlic scores, I'll stand corrected.

I'm not sure I buy that whole urination excuse. I know that tutoring can't produce anywhere near a 100% increase in most aptitude tests; so I'd be surprised if it could for the Wonderlic test. But maybe the Wonderlic reuses questions from year to year, changing a few details, but keeping the essence of the question the same.

Well, I figured someone has to provide a contrast to the peace, love, and happiness your posts always represent.

Yeah, because nobody at all has any concerns at all about Losman's ability to read defenses or make good decisions.

Were you talking about Losman in particular, or about the whole TD era?

If he only scored a one, there's no way he could take us anywhere.

I was reading up on players' Wonderlic scores, and I came across this: Akili Smith suspected of cheating on Wonderlic I noticed Losman scored 14 on the Wonderlic the first time, and 31 the second time. Does anyone know why Losman was able to more than double his score?

Some people who see your point may fail to agree with it. Apparently you have yet to realize this. Information about the Wonderlic (which I found elsewhere): So what was Peters' score? Did he get a 21, making him average? No. Did he at least get a 14, making him a standard-issue unskilled worker? No. He got a nine--nine! You act as though personal interaction between McNally and Peters may cause the former to realize Peters is a fairly smart guy after all. The only way that happens is if McNally puts on rose colored glasses. Because there's no way that a smart OL walks away from the Wonderlic with just a nine.

IIRC, McNally has indicated a preference for tough, smart OL. Peters may be tough, but he sure isn't smart. You say the Patriots aren't looking at the Wonderlic scores of the players already on their roster. But probably, that's because you had to have a pretty solid Wonderlic score to get on their roster in the first place, especially at QB, OL, or some other high IQ position. If Peters hits free agency, there's no way the Patriots throw starter-type money at the guy. I've looked at sample Wonderlic questions, and someone with a reasonably high level of intelligence should be able to get a solid score on the test. There's no way that a reasonably bright OL will bomb it as badly as Peters did. If the Bills are serious about making Peters the starting RT, it's because of one of two things: - They've allowed themselves to be swayed by wishful thinking about his intelligence - They've made the decision that an OL can use athleticism to overcome lack of brains. Either way, a major commitment to Peters at OL would be a mistake; one the Bills would end up paying for at some point.

I disagree. The New England Patriots, for example, place a higher premium on intelligence than most other teams do, and look at the Super Bowl rings they have to show for this. They're especially picky when it comes to smart OL. You could say the Wonderlic may have some degree of inaccuracy when measuring a guy's intelligence. Just because one guy scored, say, 15% higher, doesn't necessarily mean he's 15% more intelligent. But Peters' score is insanely low, which tells me the guy just doesn't have the brains to be a consistently good OL.

The thing is, the judge and jury never said he didn't do it. They just said there wasn't enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did.

I realize Willis hasn't yet earned the "great back" label. He seems to have the potential to reach the Thurman level, but I wouldn't put him in the Thurman category based on his accomplishments up to this point.

I think Peters' best game was the New England game. But it wasn't like he spent that game blocking guys one-on-one. When you need to keep your TE or some FB in to help your RT, it really makes it tough on your offense. Peters didn't show as much in 2005 as Mike Williams did in 2004. I just don't see either player as part of the long-term solution on the OL.

No offense taken. I've spent some time living in the South, so I've heard the Yankee thing before. Amusingly, people from Europe and Latin America think of all U.S. citizens as Yankees, including those from the South.

During the five starts Henry received in 2004, he got a low yards-per-carry average. In Willis's starts, he got a significantly higher average. Does this prove Willis is the better back? No, because the Bills' offensive line got dominated by defenses early in the season, much moreso than it did later on. When evaluating RBs, you have to take into account the hand they were dealt. Rushing for 700 yards under adverse circumstances can be a bigger accomplishment than rushing for 1200 yards behind the Dallas line of the early-to-mid-'90s. I can't think of a much more adverse situation for a RB than the 2005 Bills offense; yet Willis still finished with over 1000 yards.

I don't buy that whole won/lost argument for a minute. Was Willis responsible for the departure of Pat Williams, the unsettled QB situation, the Takeo injury, the loss of 40% of the starting line in the 2004-2005 offseason, or the other things that were directly responsible for all those losses this year? Of course not. The yards per carry argument you made earlier is stronger. But even there, the Bills offensive line was putrid in 2005; worse than it's been in some time. Also, Travis's yards per carry benefitted because Kevin Gilbride was pass-happy. Defensive coordinators know that when Gilbride is calling the plays, it's pass first, pass second, and run third. Unless it is, in fact, third down, in which case a pass play will be called. With defensive coordinators defending against the pass first, it's easier to get lots of yards per carry on the rare occassions when running plays are actually called. With Losman under center, defensive coordinators knew the Bills wanted to be a run-first team to take the pressure off the QB. So they ganged up to stop the run, daring Losman to beat them with his arm.

Sometimes, people get away with things. Sometimes, there just isn't enough evidence to convict a guilty person. I don't know enough about the Ray Lewis case to be sure of what he did or didn't do. Do you? As for your main post, I've heard the success rate for first round picks in general is about 50%. So if a few guys in your post's unsuccessful or unsure categories move their way into the successful category, Miami's record will be par for the course.

I wouldn't exactly call that a garbage roster. Chester McGlockton at DT. Jeff Hostetler--a familiar face in the Bills' first Super Bowl--at QB. Speed at WR with James Jett and Raghib Ismail. Tim Brown as the featured WR. Guys like Kevin Gogan and Steve Wisniewski along the OL. There was some talent there. As for why the Raiders fell off the radar after Shell left, some of it has to do with guys getting old fast. Much like what happened to the Bills between 2004 and 2005.

The problem I have with Peters along the OL is his short bus Wonderlic score. I mean, that guy really bombed the Wonderlic. You want your offensive linemen to be athletic and strong, which he is. But you also want them to be able to recognize blitzes and not get outsmarted by men like Belichick. Maybe he could be moved to a position that doesn't demand as high a level of intelligence, such as DL. I know it'd be a big switch, and he might not contribute much right away. But long term, a great athlete with a low IQ has more to offer along the DL than the OL.

I didn't take the opinions personally, but I did notice two top-ten lists that included Travis Henry but not McGahee, including one list with several players ranked below Henry. Nothing against Henry, but McGahee is the better back.

There's that, and then there's a quote of his that I read in Newsweek. He said (not an exact quote), "Before I go any further, I want you to understand I didn't kill Nicole. But if I did kill her, it was because I loved her too much." Earlier, at her burial (or around that time), a sad OJ said, "I loved her too much."

I know you're grateful to OJ for what he did for the franchise, but there's no doubt about what he did to Nicole and Ron.

Travis played through a fractured leg when he was here, and ended up with good numbers. But he seemed to lose interest in playing well once McGahee was fully healed. Maybe Travis doesn't respond well to competition from other RBs. Or maybe he was just having a bad year. I think he's a better back than Antowain Smith (who was once a first round pick for the Bills). That's tough to say. In his five years here, Tom Donahoe acquired only six proven starters via the draft. He signed a lot of free agents, but some of those guys are getting old. Our new general manager (Marv Levy) has never been in an NFL front office before, so most of us don't really know what to expect from him. The offensive line is a joke, and needs to be fixed. There's really only one starter-quality player on the defensive line. The QB is unproven. But being Bills fans, many have concocted scenarios as to how the Bills could be quite a good team in 2006. It's best to get your hopes up as high as possible, so the ensuing disappointment hurts all the more. Buffalonians have become connoisseurs of disappointment, having endured four consecutive Super Bowl losses, and two Stanley Cup losses. One of the Stanley Cup losses in particular was hard to take, because the winning "goal" actually should not have counted. In hockey, an offensive player isn't allowed to make a shot on goal unless he's a certain distance away. If he's too close, any goal he might "score" by rule doesn't count. But the Dallas player who scored the goal was indeed too close; a fact which the refs didn't call. The so-called "goal" was scored in triple overtime of game six. I remember watching that game. It was played in Buffalo. The announcers mentioned that it was past midnight, and most of the fans had to work the next day. Yet they couldn't see a single empty seat in the arena. People from Buffalo care passionately about sports, and expect players to do the same.

People from Buffalo aren't Yankees in the same sense people from New York City are Yankees. Buffalo isn't technically part of the Midwest, but it should be. It's about three hours from Cleveland, but a good eight hours or more from New York City. People from Buffalo don't have majorly differing accents than people from the Midwest. Buffalo is a nice place, though the city's been shrinking due to a lousy economy.

I agree trading away next year's first round pick would be too steep a price to pay for moving up just three - five spaces in the draft. Maybe the Bills could franchise and trade Nate Clements for a 2nd and 3rd round pick in this year's draft. Then, if your goal is to move up to take Mario, you trade away the 2nd round pick, while keeping the 3rd to draft a CB. Will the CB you draft be as good as Nate? Probably not. But if Mario turns out to be elite or nearly so, it would be worth it.