Orton's Arm

His teams may have looked good in training camp. But how did they look late in the year? How did they look in the playoffs? I want a coach whose teams look good in January. You seem to want a coach whose teams look good in June!

K9: > Sooner or later the skull has to stop and it's nice that it can come to rest upon a nice soft membrane > inside the helmet, but the brain is still accelerating at the same speed. Unfortunately, the inside of > your skull doesn't have the same type of shock absorbing capability that the new and improved > helmet has. There will be some improvement in mitigating linear acceleration injuries, but none > in those as a result of rotational acceleration inside the skull. From page 5 of the article: > First up in Halldin’s test is the non-MIPS helmet. . . . I can see on the computer that the head sustained > about 170 Gs of linear force, and it rotated 14,100 radians per second squared (the standard scientific > metric for rotation). It’s a big hit, one that would probably result in a concussion or worse. . . . > Now comes the second helmet. Every variable is the same as in the first test except for the addition > of the low-friction MIPS layer. . . . This time the computer shows rotation of 6,400 radians per second > squared, a 55 percent reduction. From the description on page 4: > With MIPS, the rubber straps allow the helmet to move just a bit relative to the sliding, low friction head > cap, thereby eliminating much of the twisting motion before it reaches the brain. A sliding, low friction surface can definitely reduce radial force. For example: imagine yourself opening a twist cap. You just applied a radial force. But if a layer of grease was applied between your fingers and the twist cap, your ability to impart a radial force to the twist cap would be greatly reduced. At least in theory, that's the same concept the Swedish designers of the helmet are using to reduce radial forces traveling to players' brains. A portion of the radial force is being expended via the motion between the outer helmet and the head cap.

This guy has a very strong resume, and would make an excellent candidate for head coach. As for the argument some have made that he wouldn't come here: typically people who rise to the level Fangio has have a great deal of self-confidence. They are used to succeeding. A guy like Fangio probably believes that if you gave him a few years, he could turn around a broken team--especially if the GM was willing to work with him to get him the kinds of players he needs. And it's not like the Bills are entirely broken. When healthy, the offensive line is a source of strength. Spiller and Stevie Johnson are very good players. There's some talent on the defense. If the Bills obtained a franchise quarterback, and a few reasonably competent defensive starters, this team could have potential. The ownership situation is another matter, and may give head coaching candidates pause. On the other hand, a head coach may assume that by the time Ralph Wilson dies, he'll have proven his value as a head coach. But let's say that he succeeds as a head coach, but gets fired anyway by a new owner cleaning house. His successful tenure as head coach will significantly enhance the strength of his resume in the eyes of other GMs around the league. This assumes, of course, that he is successful as a head coach. My one concern with drafting a guy from the defensive side of the ball is that the Bills' biggest need is for a franchise quarterback. The last thing I want is for a head coaching candidate to pressure Nix to fix the defense now, and worry about quarterback later. If the Bills can possibly get their hands on a franchise QB in this upcoming draft, the time to get that QB is right now. The price paid for that quarterback is irrelevant, because a franchise quarterback will more than justify any price the Bills might conceivably pay.

I wish you had taken the time to read the article in the OP before commenting on this subject. I have to agree with San Jose Bills Fan on this one.

Given that I would rather have Matt Schaub than RGIII as my QB, this is a very easy question for me. In my eyes, Schaub is at very least a top-7 QB, and knocking on the door of top-5. If the Texans passed more, they would win more games. The kind of college QB I want should have the following traits: High level of throwing accuracy Ability to process large amounts of information very quickly Passion for the game of football, and an all-consuming desire to win Credible arm strength If a QB was richly endowed with all four of those things, I'd be more than happy to take him in the first round. To use the first overall pick on him, in fact. Other stuff--like a rocket for an arm, or a high degree of mobility--is a nice bonus. But I can live without the bonus stuff; and I'm certainly not going to regard such bonuses as a substitute for anything on the above list.

If the NFL scheduled games on Saturday, the NCAA would probably retaliate by scheduling games on Sunday.

I can't believe I'm reading this thread. (As though the thread from the other day, suggesting Jim Kelly for head coach, wasn't enough.) There's a normal career track in the NFL. If you want to be a head coach, you start off as a quality control guy. Then, if you do well, you become a position coach. Then an offensive or defensive coordinator. Finally a head coach. By the time you've been given the head coach mantle, you've proven your passion for coaching, via your countless number of long workweeks. You've (presumably) proven yourself a good teacher as a position coach. You've hopefully proven yourself a master of X's and O's as a coordinator. The same is true for a front office career track. As a scout, you'll have evaluated large numbers of players over the years. In order to receive promotions, your evaluations will (presumably) need to have been more accurate than the norm for scouts, over a long period of time. The above-described screening system doesn't always work. But it exists for a reason. While it may not filter out all of the unsuitable people who pass through it, it filters out a great many. The idea that Jim Kelly should be exempted from this filtering process, and should be sent straight to the top--either as a head coach or a GM--is hard to fathom. There are plenty of young, hungry people willing to work for a top position like that. Who are willing to subject themselves to that filtering process. Let the position go to one of them. Let it go to whichever of them is the hungriest, the most competent, and has shown the greatest edge in the specific field in question. Meaning, if you want a good coach, look for a guy who's providing good coaching already. If you want a good general manager, look for a guy who at very least is doing an excellent job as a talent scout. Give me a guy who thinks outside the box; and who uses said outside-the-box thinking to produce consistently better results than his peers. Bill Belichick is like that with respect to X's and O's; regardless of whether you like or hate him as a coach or as a human being.

This would be perfect. If this was done, the Buffalo News would need to hire someone to replace him. Each week, the replacement would choose an old Jerry Sullivan column. He would use that particular column as the basis for his own weekly column. Example: Original Jerry column: > Over the last two weeks, the Bills have allowed six sacks. Tom Donahoe's failure to adequately address the offensive line raises serious questions about his competence as general manager. Rewritten column: > Over the last two weeks, the Bills have allowed six 5.5 sacks. Tom Donahoe's Jerry Sullivan's failure to adequately address the offensive line raises serious questions about his competence as general manager. Jerry has helpfully given enough material to last for years. Decades, even.

Ah, the old "you are not a fan if you want the team to lose out for better draft position" argument. I see that very few posts were made in this thread before that argument first appeared! The Colts went 1-15 in 1997; thereby allowing them to take Peyton Manning first overall in 1998. If "true" Colts fans could redo 1997, would they have wanted the Colts to go, say, 5-11 or 6-10? Would those extra few wins help avoid the "loser mentality" you've warned us against? The same thing happened more recently, when the Colts went 1-15 to be able to take Andrew Luck. Would they have been better off going 5-11 and avoiding the "loser mentality"? Nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners have had franchise quarterbacks. The Bills haven't had a franchise quarterback since Kelly hung up his cleats. Over the last decade, there have been multiple drafts in which the best and most promising QB prospects have been off the board before the Bills' first pick.

Over the course of his career, Mark Sanchez has averaged 6.5 yards per pass attempt. That's the same career average as Trent Edwards. Sanchez has typically had better supporting casts than the chopped liver they stuck Trent Edwards with. After adjusting for strength of supporting cast, Trent Edwards is a better quarterback than Sanchez--at least statistically. Over the last few seasons, Fitzpatrick has typically produced better yards per attempt stats than the career averages for Edwards or Sanchez. I'm not saying Fitz has a huge advantage over the other two; but I still feel he's the best of the three. Edwards is probably #2 on that list, and Sanchez #3.

> But if feels this thread is trying to make the argument that put eli manning or drew brews on this team, and > all of a sudden we are on our way to the super bowl, and I am sorry, that is not the case. I do not recall anyone in this thread having made the above argument. Instead, LiterateStylish's argument is that the Bills' first, second, and third priority this off-season should be to obtain a long-term answer at QB. The kind of QB capable of leading his team to a Super Bowl win; assuming the players around him are sufficiently talented. Yes, the Bills are more than just a player away from being a Super Bowl winner. I realize that, LiterateStylish realizes that. I think just about everyone realizes that. But the Bills are more than just one off-season away from having a Super Bowl champion. So why not get the most valuable, most difficult-to-obtain piece added now, this coming off-season, so you won't have to worry about it later? With a franchise quarterback on board, with improvement from some younger players already on the roster, and with a few judicious additions in future off-seasons, this could be a team to be reckoned with!

> This is just a long winded way of saying fitz sucks? LiterateStylish's thread is a lot more than just that. On these boards, the argument has often been made that Fitz would be just fine at quarterback if you could just upgrade the team around him. Get him a better defense, a less pass-happy offensive coordinator, and a better #2 WR, and all would supposedly be well. LiterateStylish's point is that that formula won't work--at least not if the goal is to build a Super Bowl champion. The Bills will need to upgrade the QB position if they are to win the Super Bowl. The quote from Bill Polian directly supports LiterateStylish's main point.

Making the transition from a college writer to a professional is hard. In college, you can get away with a lot of little mistakes. In the pros, the other team's editor will ruthlessly exploit every little error. Another change is the speed of the game. A writing assignment which would have been allocated three or four days in college will be required in just one day in the pros. Just because a writer is successful at the college level does not necessarily mean he'll be successful as a professional. That being said, most successful professional writers are not good enough to be considered shutdown writers. Perhaps that's where Damond Talbot's future lies--perhaps he'll have a good career as a nickel or dime writer, without ever being quite good enough to crack the starting lineup.

Damond Talbot has made his share of mistakes. But he's still a rookie. Hopefully with time he'll evolve into a shutdown writer. The kind of writer you can put on an island against the other team's best editor, and have things come out okay.

The problem with the above is that it's unlikely Barkley will still be available late in the first round. There are a lot of quarterback-needy teams out there. The tendency will be for QBs to go earlier than expected.

You and I are definitely on the same page. > He simply lacks the imagination and the wherewithal to make a bold move similar to what Shanahan did last > year to acquire RGIII. He is who he is so let's not elevate our expectations beyond being realistic. I hear what you're saying. In discussions like this, I like to think about what I would do, if I were in a GM's place. If the Bills' GM does a worse job than I would have done, I'd feel disappointment. If the Bills' GM should ever do a better job than the one I would have done, I would feel pleasantly surprised. The Bills need to have a GM who makes better decisions than the ones I would make, were I in his place. They haven't had a GM like that since Polian, which is why this team hasn't made the playoffs in over a decade.

> The problem is not that they have not tried, but tried in an unconventional ways and then not stuck with it. "Unconventional" isn't exactly the word I would use. > 1. Gave up a 1st rounder to get Bledsoe. Giving up a first rounder for another team's aging backup QB is definitely not standard NFL practice. It was a short term, quick fix move. A team which had gone 3-13 the previous season--as the Bills had back in 2001--shouldn't have been looking for quick fixes and Band Aid solutions. Especially not with its first round picks. > 2. Picked Losman with a 1st round and gave up a 1st round next year and then blew it as they could not > put a good running game or a good defense around him to win. The problem with the Losman pick wasn't the running game. It wasn't the defense. The problem with the Losman pick is that it resulted in Losman. > 3. Drafted Edwards in the 3rd and at one point appeared very promising, but then having shitting OCs eveyr season derailed his confidence and into oblivion. It's very rare for a QB drafted after the first round to turn into a franchise guy. Over the last decade, only Matt Schaub has gone from being a non-first-round pick to a franchise quarterback. Edwards showed some initial promise, and for a third round pick he was worth a shot. But things didn't work out, and I doubt very much if they would have worked out even if the Bills hadn't kept changing offensive coordinators. > The problem is that they had a shot at picking a few other Prototypical QBs that could have succeeded here, but went the other way. But that is hindsight . . . It is not hindsight to say that over the last 10+ years, the Bills have not given themselves any high probability chances of finding a long term solution to the QB problem. Not Drew Bledsoe, due both to his age and to the fact that he'd had mediocre years for the Patriots in 2000 and 2001. Not Losman, because he wasn't an accomplished pocket passer at the college level. Not Trent Edwards, because the odds are heavily against a third round pick becoming a franchise QB. Not since the Rob Johnson trade have the Bills used their first pick of the draft on a QB. The Bills have traditionally been very miserly about using early picks on QBs; so as to enable themselves to squander those picks on RBs and DBs. One doesn't need 20/20 hindsight to be able to see that this is an extremely stupid drafting strategy.

If you're implying that taking a QB needs to be the Bills' first, second, and third offseason priority, then I wholeheartedly agree. There's one thing I may see a bit differently though. If the best QBs in the draft are supposed to go, say, 5th, 12th, and 20th, and if the Bills are picking 8th, I'd rather have them trade up to #5 for the best QB, than trade down to #12 for the second-best. I also have a good feeling about Barkley, and would approve of his selection even if they take him a bit earlier than he's expected to go.

> It is evident every week that neglecting the qb position, especially given the rule changes, is the biggest reason for the continuing losses. I completely agree. Nix needs to find a franchise QB, even if it means trading away three years' worth of draft picks! > This however does not excuse the squandering of resources on the db and rb positions. Also agreed. Granted, a first round pick used on a RB or a DB is not automatically a waste. Other teams draft RBs or DBs as part of a long term plan. The Bills typically draft them due to shortsightedness. Antowain Smith, Travis Henry, Willis McGahee, and Marshawn Lynch each represented footsteps on the hamster wheel. So too did all the first round DBs they've allowed to go first-contract-and-out over the years. The opposite of this approach would be to use a first round pick on a guy like Antoine Winfield, and then retain him for the entirety of his career! That way you'd use your first round picks on long term building blocks, not just spins of the hamster wheel. Which leads me to . . . > I think the McGahee pick was similar to others you mention as being a "Best Player Available" type Pick. That's how TD justified it, both to others and (presumably) to himself. As you pointed out, McGahee would have gone very early in that draft, had it not been for his injury. McGahee represented the "best player available" only if he recovered all of his pre-injury speed. TD's decision to draft him represented a gamble he would do exactly that. Other teams felt differently, which is why he fell as low as he did. The other teams were right: he was never as fast in Buffalo as he'd been before his injury. Making that kind of gamble was unnecessary, considering that TD had (also unnecessarily) addressed the RB position just two years earlier. > Due to the injury, he fell to the Bills who took him with the plans of going run heavy with 2 very good RBs . . . Perhaps TD and Gregg had discussed plans to go run heavy with two good RBs. But assuming those discussions occurred, they remained hypothetical only, with no visible effect on Gregg's or Gilbride's game plans. When both Henry and McGahee were healthy, it was always the case that one would get almost all the carries; whereas the other would get few if any carries. > As for the DBs, its possible that the Bills draft them early because they understand that having good ones are needed in todays pass happy, offence first NFL . . . Again, I don't object to taking a DB early, provided three things are true. 1) He must not be a reach. 2) If successful as a player, he must be retained for the entirety of his career. 3) The Bills must never pass up a good QB prospect to take a RB or DB. > The big mistake the Bills have made has been that they have been unable to find a > franchise type QB, although its not like they haven't tried, or its a simple task. They > have gone the FA route, they tried trades, they trade PS raids, they tried drafting, they > tried the CFL . . . The above reminded me of the below, hypothetical conversation. Guy1: My roof is leaking, and it's driving me nuts. Guy2: Well fix it. Guy1: That's the thing. I've tried everything, and nothing works. It keeps leaking. Guy2: What, specifically, have you tried? Guy1: Everything! I've tried duct tape, cellophane, wax paper. I've tried cardboard. I've tried piling pebbles up there. I even built a lean-to on top of my roof, just to see if that would help. It didn't. The other week I installed some big fans up there, in an effort to blow rain drops to the side before they could land on my roof. That didn't work either! I've tried everything, man. Guy2: Have you tried, um, installing new tar paper and new shingles? Guy1: Are you kidding me? That stuff's expensive, man! I prefer to spend my money in other ways, like buying a brand new car every four years. If I'm lucky I get a few hundred bucks for selling the four-year-old-car, so that adds up real quick. Especially because my wife drives a car too; so that's two cars which each need to be replaced every four years. I guess I'll have to deal with the leaky roof. Not since the Rob Johnson trade have the Bills used their first pick of the draft on a QB.

> Where I disagree with NYC Bill is that I have no problem for the most part in drafting a player in the > vicinity of where he is ranked. Using that measurement his first round selections in Spiller, Dareus > and Gilmore were all quality picks. My view is somewhere in between your view and Bill's. To me, it's perfectly acceptable to draft a DB in the first round, as long as you plan to keep your best DBs for the entirety of their careers. If you let your DBs with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment leave via free agency--as the Bills have done 3.5 times over the last decade--then a decision to use first round picks on replacement DBs cannot possibly be justified. (The 3.5 DBs who left in the primes of their careers were Antoine Winfield, Nate Clements, Jabari Greer, and half of Donte Whitner. Whitner only counts as half because he's not in the same category as the other three as a football player, and didn't sign the same relative size of contract the other three signed.) For the Bills, the RB position has likewise been a hamster wheel. Back in the '90s, the Bills neglected other positions to use a first round pick on Antowain Smith. Just four years later, TD thought he'd upgrade the RB position by taking Travis Henry. Two years after that, TD again had the thought of upgrading the RB position, so he used a first round pick on McGahee. Three years later, the very first thing Marv did as GM was to try, yet again, to upgrade the RB position, by squandering the 12th overall pick on Marshawn Lynch. Four years after the Lynch pick, Nix used a top-10 pick on C.J. Spiller. Prior to the Spiller pick, none of the early picks used on RBs had been necessary. Or even justifiable. Spiller was different: he wasn't just a case of taking a RB for the sake of taking a RB, as each of the other picks had been. It was felt--correctly--that Spiller was a special player. The Bills have traditionally had a pro-RB bias. That is, if two roughly comparable players are on the board, and if one is a RB, they will tend to take the RB. Even if the other player has moderately better long term career prospects, they've typically taken the RB anyway; on the theory that the RB will contribute more during his rookie year. If you ask me, the Bills should have a moderately strong anti-RB bias: they should only use early picks on RBs when the RBs are significantly better football players than the other available options. Spiller is enough better of a football player than the Bills' other available options to amply justify his selection, even given a moderately strong anti-RB bias. > The stubborn HC took a qb with limited abilities and through his perplexing play calling emphasized his weaknesses. I'm not sure I agree with you there. Fitz's average yards per attempt is higher under Gailey than it's been at any prior point in his career. Gailey's play calling is resulting in open receivers. They are often open on short-to-intermediate routes. Fitz isn't hitting the receivers due to his lack of accuracy. There isn't much more Gailey can do to mask Fitz's weaknesses, at least not on a per-pass-attempt basis. Gailey's other option--as you've hinted--would be to minimize the number of pass attempts Fitz is asked to make. That would be similar to masking the effect of having an inaccurate field goal kicker, by often going for it on fourth down while inside the other team's 30. You can't make Fitz or the field goal any more accurate on a per-attempt basis; but you can mask the effect their lack of accuracy will have on the course of the game. > He also took a scintillating big play back and oddly neutralized his special talents by limiting his touches. His decision to greatly limit Spiller's touches is inexplicable.

I agree with the central point of your post. Nix has fixed the offensive line, and has added a ton of talent to the defensive line. His biggest failing as a GM has been that thus far, he's done nothing to fix the QB position. If he obtains a franchise QB over the next season or two, his next 2 - 3 years as a GM will be a success, even if he accomplishes nothing else. But I also agree with Bill's main point. The Bills have traditionally overemphasized DBs in the draft, at the expense of other positions. There have been ten times over the last 40 years when the Bills used their first pick of the draft on a DB. On another ten occasions, they used their first pick of the draft on a RB. That's 20 first picks of the draft--a full 50%--on DBs + RBs. Over that same span, they've used 3.5 first picks of the draft on OTs + QBs. (The 2 OTs were John Fina and Mike Williams. The two QBs were Rob Johnson and half of Jim Kelly. Technically, Jim Kelly wasn't the Bills' first pick of the 1983 draft. But the Bills took him just two picks after they took a TE. So I've counted him as half.) From 2001 - 2010, the Bills used their first pick of the draft on a DB on 3 occasions, and on a RB in another 3 instances. That's 60% of their first picks of the draft on RBs + DBs, as opposed to 0% on QBs. If the Bills have failed to find the successor to Kelly, there's a reason why. The RBs were typically taken by GMs looking for a quick fix, or an opportunity to upgrade the team as quickly as possible. C.J. Spiller is the exception to that rule: he truly was the best available player when the Bills picked. Many of the DBs chosen were either foolish, shortsighted reaches (such as Donte Whitner), or else were drafted to replace other DBs who'd been allowed to go first-contract-and-out. The position of DB has been an open wound for this franchise: a wound which causes us to bleed out first round picks. The excessive focus on DBs and RBs is a symptom of two underlying problems. 1) The shortsightedness which has been all too typical of the Bills' post-Polian GMs. 2) The Bills' failure to invest the draft day resources typically needed to obtain a franchise QB. For example, TD decided not to trade up with Houston for Roethlisberger, because he felt Houston's price was too high. The result of this kind of thinking has been a team with no franchise quarterback, but with plenty of early picks filtering through the DB and RB positions.

> Knowing that Joe Montana would not be able to win with item #2 on Polian's list is not a straw man by any means. I agree that Joe Montana would not have been able to win the Super Bowl with the Bills' defense--especially the defense as it was earlier in the season, when it was at its worst. On that we agree. Where your earlier post came across as a straw man argument was when you seemed to imply that the OP was unaware of this fact. LiterateStylish didn't argue that a franchise QB is a sufficient condition for winning the Super Bowl. He argued that it's a necessary condition; which is a much, much stronger argument.

> But if you want to think that Joe Montana in his prime would be a SB winning QB with this same defense, don't let me stop you. You are using a straw man argument to confuse the issue. LiterateStylish did not argue or imply that the Bills are a franchise QB away from being a Super Bowl winning team. Instead, his argument (as best I understand it) is that, of the pieces the Bills need to put in place to become a Super Bowl winning team, a franchise QB is the single most important. As for your argument that Fitz has no margin for error, that might apply to throws which aren't there, but which Fitz feels he needs to force anyway due to a need to score as many points as possible. A "no margin for error" argument is not relevant to throws which are there, but which Fitz fails to complete due to his lack of accuracy. (Of which there are plenty.) It's fairly obvious that Fitz is not effective at capitalizing on available intermediate to deep passing opportunities. That limitation hamstrings the offense as a whole. Even hamstrung, the offense is often still effective. With a franchise quarterback, the Bills' offense would be somewhat comparable to the Patriots' offense. Another participant in this thread mentioned that teams with decent QBs, or with good-but-not-great QBs, have won Super Bowls. He mentioned Jeff Hostetler, Phil Simms, Trent Dilfer, and Brad Johnson. Phil Simms averaged 7.2 yards per attempt over the course of his career. That's not quite the level a QB typically needs to attain to be considered franchise, but it's not too far short, either. Jeff Hostetler averaged 7.0 yards per attempt during his career. By comparison, Fitz has never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt in a single season. Not only were Phil Simms and Jeff Hostetler significantly better QBs than Fitz, but Hostetler in particular attained a very high level of play in the postseason. Hostetler provided about the same level of play during the Giants' postseason as you'd expect from a franchise QB playing at or near his best. Similarly, Brad Johnson had a Pro Bowl year the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. The one QB the poster mentioned who led his team to a Super Bowl win without having provided a very high level of play was Trent Dilfer. Not only did the Ravens have one of the three best defenses in NFL history; with even their worst starters playing at or near a Pro Bowl level. They also had a great OL, a very good RB in Jamal Lewis, and surprisingly weak postseason competition. With the exception of the first half of their game against the Raiders (Rich Gannon), none of their postseason opponents had a franchise QB.

Consider the first thousand passes Fitzpatrick threw; whether those passes were in practice, high school games, or just someone's backyard. Odds are that by his thousandth pass, he'd become a much more accurate thrower than he'd been early on. Probably after pass number 2000, he was more accurate than he'd been after pass number 1000. But as he keeps throwing, the gains in accuracy for each additional 1000 passes he throws will decrease. Ryan Fitzpatrick played quarterback in high school. And in college. And for 7.5 seasons in the NFL. That's about 16 years' worth of practice at throwing the football. If you figure he averages about 25 passes a day (after averaging in days off), that's about 150,000 passes he's thrown over the course of his life. Possibly many more than that. Any gains in accuracy he could achieve by practicing, he's probably already achieved. The argument has been made that he's been practicing with bad mechanics; and that a few thousand or a few ten thousands of passes with good mechanics might help him become more accurate. Thus far this season that hasn't happened. There's the hope that with an additional off season working on good mechanics, it might. It would be great if it did. But the Bills shouldn't base their draft strategy around that rather slim hope.

> Oh, so this thread isn't about whether or not the Bills should lose out? It's been about what we would all do as GM? I missed that. You missed the point of my earlier text. If you want to miss the point again, you can go back and reread it. > Like I said earlier, the naivete around here can be staggering at times. The point that you know I made is that > when the entire locker room sees obviously wrong personnel decisions being made, it undermines everything > else the front office and coaches try to do. The best recent example of starting a QB without locker room > buy-in is Losman for Bledsoe. Tore the locker room apart. How'd that work out for that GM? TD was fired because he went 5-11 in year five of his rebuilding plan. Not only was the team 5-11, many of its most important contributors were aging players in decline. TD got himself into that mess because of precisely the kind of short-sighted thinking you advocate. > But a GM who purposely places his team in the best position to lose is just preceding someone else. You won't last long doing it that way. You seem to be arguing that regardless of whether my strategy is good or bad for the team's long term future, it doesn't matter; because any GM who pursues it will soon be fired. Clearly, this strategy would require a strong relationship between the GM and the owner to work. And the GM would have to invest time with the owner each week, or even more frequently, in order to maintain and improve upon that relationship. The GM would also have to sell the owner on the concept of tanking the season to get that franchise QB. Once the franchise QB is in place, winning games will become a lot easier; thereby greatly increasing the GM's job security.