Orton's Arm

Good post. All too often, the best QB prospects have been off the board by the time the Bills' pick came up. Eli Manning, Philip Rivers, and Ben Roethlisberger had all been drafted before the Bills' first pick of the 2004 draft. As you point out, lack of good draft position has also cost us Andrew Luck, and a number of other good quarterbacks. It is virtually impossible to win a Super Bowl without a franchise quarterback. Yes, the Bills did have a few chances to get franchise QBs with the draft picks they did have. They could have taken Drew Brees in the 2001 draft, instead of Nate Clements. They could have taken Matt Schaub in the 3rd round of the 2004 draft. Had they not squandered their first round pick in the 2005 draft on the Losman trade, they could have drafted Aaron Rodgers. Nevertheless, I would say that of the franchise QBs drafted over the last ten or so years, more than half were off the board by the time the Bills picked. Some of the others--such as Schaub--were rejected by every team in the NFL at least twice, which means that not even the best talent evaluators in the league had realized what those guys were capable of. To make a long post short, the lower your draft position, the harder it becomes to build a good team. I'd like to see at least one occasion--and perhaps more than one--in which the Bills have the very first pick of the draft. The last time that happened, they chose Bruce Smith first overall. If you could sprinkle in a few elite players--especially at QB--this would become an entirely different team.

Good point about Jackson, unfortunately. O.J. Simpson had a season in which he averaged 6.0 yards per carry; and another season in which he averaged 5.5 yards per carry. Thurman Thomas had a couple of seasons in which he averaged 4.9 yards per carry; with the rest of his seasons less than that. Thus far this season, Spiller has averaged over 7 yards per carry. I for one am very, very pleased with the Bills' running game.

What differences do you see between them? Under Clinton, federal spending was 17% of GDP. Under Bush, that increased to 19%, in what Bush's critics correctly referred to as "spending money like a drunken sailor." Under Obama, federal spending has risen to 26% of GDP. Neither president did much of anything to rein in spending. Both increased spending with respect to healthcare entitlements: Bush with his prescription drug program, Obama with Obamacare. Both racked up very large deficits. Deficits averaged about 2% of GDP under Bush, and about 10% of GDP under Obama. Bush strongly supported the Patriot Act; which Obama has not repealed. Obama's vice president favors more government spying on its own citizens, and more rights for record companies and movie studios in their quest to reshape the Internet according to their liking. Both Bush and Obama signed massive bailouts for the financial sector, resulting in hundreds of billions of government spending. I'll agree that Bush and Obama were different in terms of foreign policy. But I don't see a huge difference on the domestic side, except that Obama has shown even more willingness to borrow and spend/buy votes than Bush had.

If Obama wins, it will be four more years of the Bills using first round picks on first-contract-and-out DBs, or RBs who get replaced every 3.5 years. It will be four more years of no real quarterback, no real defensive coordinator, and an inept owner. If Romney wins, the Bills will obtain a franchise QB and a top tier coaching staff. Mario's wrist will heal, and he will become the player we'd all hoped for.

> Once we have a good team, we can replace the QB. Good team => good record => low draft position => many of the best QB prospects are off the board long before you pick. The right time to get your QB is before you get good, because that's when your draft position will be the best. > Heck, a good QB might want to even come here at that point. It's very rare for a franchise QB to change teams while in his prime. Sure, you could point to Kurt Warner as an example. He had some injuries in the middle of his career, those injuries hampered his play, and the Rams gave up on him. The Cardinals wisely didn't, and were rewarded. But the Cardinals only got 5 years out of him before he retired--five years out of his 12 year career. Compare the Cardinals' five year window to the >10 year window enjoyed by teams like the Colts (Manning) or Patriots (Brady). The more times you're up to bat, the more likely you are to hit a home run (Super Bowl win). Besides which, it's not exactly as though the league is bursting with examples of franchise QBs who have become free agents mid-career. Over the last 10 - 15 years, the only other guy in that category is Drew Brees.

Neither the Bills nor the Redskins have a chance of winning the upcoming Super Bowl. The discussion shouldn't be about this season. It should be about how close the two teams are to building themselves into respectable Super Bowl contenders. Both teams will need significantly better defenses to become Super Bowl contenders. In addition, we can know, with a reasonable degree of certainty, that the Bills will not win a Super Bowl ring while Fitzpatrick is their starting quarterback. On the bright side, the Bills have one of the best running games in team history. And a very good offensive line.

Good post. I appreciate your taking the time to write it. Below are a few of my thoughts about your thoughts. 1) There were some here who had wanted us to draft AJ Green rather than Dareus. Green seems determined to prove those fans right. So does Dareus. 2) Gilmore is a better player than you're giving him credit for. He is not Donte Whitner. A number of draft guides didn't even have Whitner going in the first round. Vic Carucci didn't have Whitner rated as a first round talent. By contrast, I can't recall seeing any mock draft in which Gilmore fell to 16th or later, or any credible analyst who felt he wasn't a top-15 talent. 3) I agree with you that Spiller has talent. Out of curiosity, I looked up Thurman Thomas and O.J. Simpson. Thurman Thomas has never averaged more than 4.9 yards a carry in a season. O.J. Simpson once averaged 6.0 yards a carry in a season; and had another season in which he averaged 5.5 yards a carry. Thus far this season, Spiller is averaging 7.2 yards per carry. Granted, a lot of the credit for that goes to the offensive line. But both Simpson and Thomas played behind some good OLs too. 6) I suspect Glenn was playing hurt. 9) I know this may sound like heresy, but I have serious concerns about rehiring Bill Polian. Partly that's due to age: his mind may not be as sharp as it was back in the early '90s when he built the Bills into a special team. His fire and passion may have dimmed. He may have lost his edge. But the single most important reason the Bills shouldn't hire Bill Polian is because of his son, Chris Polian. Chris was given increasingly important roles in the Colts organization. Others in that organization left or were fired due to personality clashes with Chris. Chris has done nothing to deserve to be in the NFL, except get lucky enough to have the right family connections. Due in large part to Chris's destructive influence, the Colts had added very little young talent over the preceding years. Manning helped mask that lack of new, young talent. Once Manning went down with an injury, the Colts were exposed for what they were: a Hall of Fame QB surrounded by a 1-15 supporting cast. Chris Polian was the architect of that 1-15 supporting cast; and we do not want his brand of architecture coming to Buffalo! That said, I agree that Wade Phillips would be an infinitely better defensive coordinator than Wannstedt.

Matt Schaub has a career average of 7.8 yards per attempt; as compared to 7.5 yards per attempt for Tom Brady and 7.6 yards per attempt for Peyton Manning. Over the course of his career, Schaub has thrown almost twice as many TDs as INTs--roughly the same TD:INT ratio as Peyton Manning. QB rating isn't a particularly useful stat, but for whatever it's worth, Brady, Schaub, and Manning each have career QB ratings in the low to mid 90s. Matt Schaub is the most underrated QB in the NFL. A strong argument could be made that he's one of the five best QBs in the league.

I agree that the Bills have used far too many first round picks on RBs over the last 1 - 2 decades. I also agree this is indefensible strategically. A GM--and especially a Bills GM--should have an anti-RB bias, to prevent this misuse of resources. But there will be times when a first round RB is enough better than the other players available to overcome that bias. Spiller seems to be a good example of this. He's averaging 7.3 yards per carry this season, as compared to a career average of 4.1 yards per carry for Lynch. While some of that difference is attributable to the very good job the Bills' offensive line has been doing this season, I also think it's clear that Spiller is a much faster, more athletic, better RB than Lynch. What the Bills need to do at this point is resist any temptation to use additional early picks on RBs, at least for the next 6 - 8 years. Spiller needs to spend his career in Buffalo.

Thanks!

Have you never played a sport in which the ability to take more pain than the other guy was an important part of winning? I've played a sport like that. My base level of motivation was always high. I never slacked off. But there would be some days when I'd feel especially motivated. There would be other times when I'd still push myself very hard, but not quite as hard. I'd push myself hard when I had an uninspiring coach, or no coach at all. But an inspiring coach could get me to push myself a little bit more. Or could convince me that a higher level of accomplishment was possible than I might otherwise have believed. It's true that I was doing all of this for free, whereas NFL athletes are paid large sums of money for their efforts. But if you tell a player that he's getting the same game check whether he gives it 70% or 100%, or whether his team loses or wins, you will not necessarily cause that player to be 100% motivated 100% of the time. It's human nature to give your all for a leader you respect, who has a clear plan in place, and who pushes you to do your share to make the plan work. Someone like Vince Lombardi. But if the person in charge lacks a clear direction, does not impose accountability, does not inspire you, and does not push you, it's human nature to slack off a little. Words like "professional athlete" are not magic wands one can wave to change human nature.

Good post!

This.

> Gailey thinks Williams can be helpful to Dave Wannstedt, “I’m sure he probably can. We’ve not talked about it, I haven’t talked about it with Dave . . ." To me the above answer indicates that Gailey isn't trying to micromanage Wannstedt. Probably part of that is that he trusts Wannstedt's judgment on defense more than he trusts his own. Part of that may be because Gailey is busy doing tasks normally reserved for offensive coordinators; and so does not have the time to oversee his defensive coordinator as closely as some other head coaches might. > That’s the one thing that kills you if you end up in 3rd and less than seven on a regular basis The above statement could be taken one of two ways. 1) Defeatism about the prospect of facing 3rd and 6 or less. 2) A sense of urgency about putting other teams' offenses into 3rd and 7 or more. > “You look at a season and I’ve said this 100 times and you go out and try to win every game and then you get to 12 or 13 and then you evaluate where you are and what you’ve got to do to get where you want to be. I think what he means by the above is that for the first 12 - 13 weeks of the season you focus solely on your upcoming opponent. But around week 13, you may also want to take a step back, and examine your season in more holistic, big picture terms. I would also like to add that many of the questions Gailey is asked involve an attempt to get him to either a) assign blame to someone, or b) describe a proposed solution to an existing problem. A few weeks ago, a reporter asked Gailey about Mario Williams' lack of performance. Gailey said something to the effect of, "Well, he may not be getting sacks, but at least he's attracting double teams." The reporter pointed out that Williams was not, in fact, being double teamed; and was still not producing. Gailey's response at that point was "I can't speak to that." My sense is that Gailey may well be a lot more aware of the problems with his team than he lets on in the media, but doesn't want to throw anyone under the bus. Many of the questions he's been asked are open invitations to do exactly that. This may be why he's taken to giving vague, unhelpful answers to questions. Additionally, Gailey is passionate about winning, which means that each loss takes a big toll on him. If he's asked questions immediately after a heart-wrenching loss, I would expect him to go into "be vague to reporters" mode a little more quickly than might otherwise be the case. If you're feeling the bitterness of defeat, it can be easy to say something negative about someone which you might later regret having said.

I hear where you're coming from. However, I'd argue that there might be hope on the horizon. I'm sure this is the very first time in the last 30 years when you've heard that sentiment expressed! There are two separate, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, possibilities for the team's incompetence. 1) The incompetence is caused by poor ownership. 2) The incompetence is caused by the lack of a franchise quarterback. As for 1), even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a nut. Meaning, that even an owner like Ralph Wilson will sometimes hire a Bill Polian. Could Nix be another Polian? Maybe--the jury is still out on that. As for 2), nine of the last ten Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise quarterbacks. The Bills have had only one franchise quarterback in team history: Jim Kelly. (To anyone who says Jack Kemp, my response is: look at his stats.) Not coincidentally, the Kelly era was the only time in franchise history when the Bills even made it to the Super Bowl. If you were to add a franchise QB to the Bills, heal Mario Williams' wrist, replace the defensive coordinator, and make a few other changes, this could be a real team. My suggestion to you is: don't set your hopes high for this team, until such time as a franchise QB has been added.

I did the following calculation: (3.5^3.5) x 3.5 = 281. Put me down for 281, please.

You and I seem to have somewhat similar perspectives. The offense the Bills used last weekend didn't ask the QB to make long throws, or difficult throws. Gailey designed the offense to fit within Fitz's (very narrow) limitations. For most of the game, Fitz looked reasonably competent, playing within those limitations. His numbers were good, in large part because he was going against a poor defense. I agree that if the Bills had a top-10 defense, they would probably have won most of their games thus far. The offense has a ridiculously good running game, and a somewhat good passing game. That passing game is the result of very good pass protection, Stevie Johnson's ability to get open even against the best CBs in the league, the emergence of players like Chandler and Graham, and a mediocre QB who does some things well and other things poorly. The offense is pretty good, and is one to two players away from being very special. If you were to add a Kurt Warner and an AJ Green to the offense, you'd have something similar to the Greatest Show on Turf. Our offensive line would be comparable to theirs, our running back situation would be as good as theirs--if not better--our receiving corps (after adding Green) would be at least as good as theirs.

To me, the most important defensive statistic is points allowed per drive. Unfortunately, I haven't seen any sites which keep track of that particular stat. (Even though they should!) That being said, I agree that last year's Patriots defense was probably better than its yards allowed defense would seem to have indicated. That defense had a lot of injuries. Once guys started coming back healthy--which happened toward the end of the year--it became something of a strength for that team. That defense was at its weakest earlier in the year; back when the injury bug had hit the hardest. The defense which the Bills faced in the first Bills-Pats game was especially weak.

Good post! > 3) This OL is probably the best, and definitely the deepest in the history of the franchise. They have at least 7, and perhaps 8 men who can play. It is a pleasure to see them perform so well. I wish we had a time machine, so that we could see how this offensive line would do against the Jimmy Johnson Cowboys' defensive lines. It would be an interesting battle, and there's a chance this OL would do better than the '90s Bills' OL did. > 4) Wanny is the worst DC that I have ever had the displeasure to watch. Last year people said that about Edwards. This year they're saying it about Wanny. Next year they'll be saying it about _______ ? > 8) I hope that Gilmore starts making plays. He has the tools, but a game changing play isn't much to ask from a kid who was drafted as high as he was. The problem with being really good in coverage, on a team where others are poor at coverage, is that the guy you're covering tends not to get too many balls thrown his way. > 9) Pay attention if you will to AJ McCarron tonight if you get a chance. He is starting to remind me of Fitz, but with less mistakes and a somewhat better, and more accurate arm. Perfect! Fitz would actually be a good quarterback, if his arm was a bit stronger, and above all if he could throw the ball accurately. If you've found a guy who's strong in the same areas as Fitz, and who's accurate to boot, that would be ideal. > 10) The worst thing about this season imo is the dejection of the fanbase, not that I blame anyone or am exempt. If we could have just held on last week, a freak win over Houston or NE would have kept us in the picture. Watching the Bills play the Patriots was like watching a middle school team play a high school team. The two teams had no business being on the same field. A trip to the playoffs would be rather pointless when you know--not think, but know--that in the postseason the Bills would get destroyed by the first real team they faced. In order to change that equation, the Bills should tank the rest of the season, and draft the best possible QB they can lay their hands on. If that means trading up, so be it. Any remaining draft picks could be used to improve the defense.

I agree that the defense is a huge problem; and that a change will have to be made at defensive coordinator. I'd like to see the Bills hire a young, up-and-coming position coach from some other team. Ideally he should be a linebackers coach for a team which plays a 3-4. Not the joke 3-4 which we used last year. A real 3-4, like the one Belichick uses, or like the one Wade Phillips employs. On another matter, giving a QB lousy pass protection is like giving a swordsman a short, dull, heavy sword. Giving him good pass protection and good WRs is like giving him a long, light, sharp sword! The quality of the weapon matters a lot. So too does the quality of the swordsman. Right now, the Bills have given a very good sword to an inferior swordsman (Fitzpatrick).

Franchise QBs are very rare. About one new one is drafted each year, or perhaps slightly less. This means a typical NFL team will draft a franchise QB about once every 40 years. It's almost impossible to win the Super Bowl without a franchise QB. Nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners had franchise quarterbacks. Franchise quarterbacks are often drafted very early. If you wait until all your team's problems are fixed except for quarterback before trying to draft your franchise QB, you'll be picking later in the first round, in a draft in which the top QB talent will be gone very early. If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's one available when you pick, you take him. Period. It does not matter what other needs your team may have, or what other players may be available when you pick. If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's a chance to trade up for one, and if the price for the trade-up is reasonably sane, you do it. That kind of trade up is a no brainer. Yes, the defense needs a large scale infusion of talent. A much greater talent infusion than many (including me) had believed prior to the start of the season. But that's something which can be done little by little. A player here, a player there, a new defensive coordinator, and slowly the defense will start to look much more credible. But a franchise quarterback cannot be drafted piecemeal, or little by little. It's one big lump. There may not always be the opportunity to make that big, one lump improvement to your team. If or when that opportunity does arise, you have to take it!

I agree that, for the most part, the offense has been reasonably productive. But let's look at the facts: 1) When healthy, the Bills' offensive line is good enough that even Bill from NYC is pleased with it. Quite pleased, in fact. 2) Last year, many here felt that Fred Jackson was among the best RBs in the league. This year Spiller has clearly surpassed him. 3) The Bills' #1 WR--Stevie Johnson--is able to consistently get open against the best CBs in the league, such as Revis. Johnson is also usually good about not dropping passes. (With some notable exceptions, of course.) 4) Graham is quietly becoming a good WR as well. 5) The Bills have a good pass catching TE in the form of Chandler Given 1 - 5, you'd expect the offense to be productive. During the first two games of the season, Spiller averaged over 10 yards a carry. I remember a recent game in which he averaged 7 yards a carry. Running backs aren't supposed to put up numbers that good--but no one seems to have told Spiller that. The Bills have almost all the pieces in place to put together a truly frightening offense--a Greatest Show on Turf type offense. The most important missing piece is the quarterback. The second-most important missing piece is one additional receiver--a guy like A.J. Green. With this current combination of mediocre quarterback + great supporting cast, the offense as a whole will be productive. Not nearly as productive as it could have been with Kurt Warner at quarterback, but productive. The defense's problems are a separate issue. An offense can still be dominant even when the team doesn't have a defense; as Tom Brady showed us last year. I agree the defense's problems need to be fixed. But our problems at quarterback need to be fixed also. What's the good of Graham's ability to burn people deep, if we have among the very worst quarterbacks at throwing the deep ball? What's the good of Stevie Johnson's ability to get open, if many of the passes which come his way are either uncatchable or badly thrown enough it would take a truly heroic effort to catch them? What's the good of the offensive line's ability to provide really good pass protection, if that pass protection doesn't result in accurate passes?

Very good post! Just to quibble a little: I'd probably put Culpepper into the below average category. Early in his career Randy Moss made him look better than he really was. He achieved nothing after going to Miami, or after returning to the Vikings. I'd also put Tannehill into the above average category, at least for now. At least thus far, his career seems to be off to a solid start. Dan Marino never led his team to a Super Bowl victory. Neither did Jim Kelly.

Spot on! I'd argue that during his time in Buffalo, Kelly Holcomb played at a noticeably higher level than Fitz. Holcomb had no offensive line whatsoever; and a running game which was often absent. His receivers were inconsistent. His #1 WR--Eric Moulds--did less than nothing for Houston after we traded him away. Nevertheless, the offense always produced at least 14 points every game in which Holcomb played from start to finish. Had a phantom pass interference call not been made against Eric Moulds, the Bills might well have beaten the Patriots. In Foxboro, no less; and in a game in which Tom Brady didn't throw four interceptions. Had Holcomb been given the kind of offensive line the Bills have now, the Spiller/Jackson running game we currently posses, a good, pass-catching TE like Chandler, and weapons like Stevie Johnson and Graham, he would have done much more than Fitz has.

Good post. Just to add to what you've written: Dareus was playing at a disappointing level for the first few weeks of this season, and then his brother was killed. After which, Dareus went right on playing at a disappointing level. Right now, he's playing like a bust. He didn't play like a bust as a rookie. If he could return to his rookie level play, he'd be considered a very solid player. But not nearly as good a player as the Bills could have had, had they drafted A.J. Green. If the Bills had taken Green, their starting WRs would be Green and Stevie Johnson; with Graham providing a deep threat. Their starting running back would be Spiller. They'd have a solid pass catching TE in the form of Chandler. When healthy, their offensive line would be top-5 in pass protection, and top-5 in run blocking. This assemblage of talent would be similar to the Greatest Show on Turf. Except, of course, for the fact that the Rams had Kurt Warner, and we have, um, Ryan Fitzpatrick. But if the Bills had somehow been able to nab both Green and Ponder--the two players I most wanted from that draft--they would now have one of the most feared offenses in the NFL. It's unfortunate that the Bills chose Dareus over Green, and that Ponder was taken so much earlier than most (including me) had expected.