Orton's Arm

Good post. For whatever reason, our safeties aren't playing as well this year as they often have in the past. Maybe they're still adjusting to the new defensive scheme. As for our DL, I love it on paper. But if you were to erase the names on the back of those jerseys, and look at nothing but what they've actually done thus far this season, you won't necessarily find much to love. Especially not at DE. Even at DT we've seen inconsistent play. The DL's performance against the Patriots was pitiful. If those guys were seventh round picks and bargain basement free agents, maybe you'd expect performances like that. The Bills made a very substantial investment in the DL--in terms of both contracts and draft picks--to avoid precisely what we saw against the Patriots. Maybe there's something to House's point that the team--and especially the DL--would have played harder for a coach like Harbaugh than it did for Gailey. I don't know. What I do know is that the DL's actual accomplishments bear no relation to expectations. My sense is the DL is underachieving.

His post wasn't hypocritical in the least. He's evaluating both Fitz and Romo on the basis of things they can control, while filtering out things they can't. Interception percentage is a good stat. An even better stat--at least for QB evaluation purposes--would be "percentage of passes which should have been intercepted." If a WR bobbles an accurately thrown pass, and if that pass is then snatched away by a defender, it counts as an INT. But it wouldn't count as a pass which should have been intercepted. By the same token, if a pass is thrown right to a defender, then it counts as a pass which should have been intercepted; whether the defender makes the INT or not. What Peter Pan is saying is that Fitz has a much higher "passes which should be intercepted" rate than Tony Romo. That's not hypocrisy. That's not excuse-making. That's using the same measuring stick for both players.

> But...but...but...Fitz has 7.4 YPA (15th in the league) and that's the most important QB statistic. Where's Edward's Arm when ya need him? Right here! Yes, his YPA is up for the year. But the underlying problem (his lack of accuracy) is still there. One would have to do some number crunching to determine why his YPA stat for the year does not correctly illuminate his lack of accuracy. Maybe the high YPA is because his receivers are giving him a lot of YAC yards. Maybe it's some other factor. Unless he improves his accuracy, I would expect his YPA for the season to be significantly lower than it is right now. > My $0.02, Fitz is a middle-of-the-pack QB until he proves otherwise One of the reasons why the above is difficult to quantify is because Fitz is better than most NFL QBs at some aspects of the game--such as making quick, good decisions. He's worse than most QBs at other things--such as throwing the ball accurately. A lot of where you rank him depends on how much you value good decision-making versus throwing accuracy. We can get caught up in a four page debate about how our inadequate quarterback stacks up to other teams' inaccurate quarterbacks. Or we can come to a consensus that the Bills will not win a Super Bowl with Fitz under center.

> Didn't we have a great discussion on this a few months ago? Yes, I believe we did. > YPA has its drawbacks - and by the way does not actually seem to correlate that well with wins. The latter part of your statement is false. A regression analysis done by the New York Times found that, of the variables tested, yards per pass attempt (and the defensive equivalent thereof) was the single most important variable in explaining teams' winning percentages. The other important variables were yards per rushing attempt and INT percentage (and defensive equivalents), with yards per pass attempt being three times as important as any other variable. > It reflects both completion percentage, . . . Is that intended as a criticism of yards per attempt? > and the ability of the receivers to RAC (which reflects both the QB, the receivers, and the blocking). I agree that YPA might be an even better stat if you could subtract away RAC yards. But I have not encountered a free website which provides data on QBs' YPA minus RAC yards per attempt. It's better to have a good statistical measurement tool which can be used (like yards per attempt) than a perfect measurement tool which can't be used due to lack of available data. > I think the team, and our management, needs to look hard at the naked pig, which is, we can not win without a capable, consistent defense. The Bills' goal should not just be to win a few regular season games here and there. They should build a team intended to win multiple championships. I did not see either championship-caliber defense or championship-caliber quarterbacking against the Patriots. Both aspects of the team need to be upgraded. > The Rams beat Zona last night I agree that if the Bills upgraded their defense, while keeping their QB the same, they'd get some wins like the one you described. Maybe even make the playoffs. But unless their defense is truly elite--such as the Ravens defense of 2000--they will not win a championship with that kind of team.

> Simms was a career 55.4% passer--poor accuracy by any measure. Yards per attempt is a much more useful stat than completion percentage. As Bills fans have learned through experience, a QB can inflate his own completion percentage by dumping the ball off a lot. He can deflate it by going for lower probability, higher reward passes. Simms was a much better QB than Fitz; and the difference in their yards per attempt stats correctly reflects this. > [simms] played with great defenses and for a great coach. Fitz has neither. A great defense does not necessarily increase a QB's yards per attempt stat. Trent Dilfer obtained a higher yards per attempt stat in Seattle than he did when playing for the Ravens of 2000. > I'll say it again--Fitz spotted his D a 3rd Q 2 TD lead. Incorrect. You are giving Fitz credit for things over which he had no control. IIRC, the Patriots averaged just 1.5 points per drive in the first half. Fitz did not help to lower the Patriots' yards per drive stat. On the contrary: his two interceptions in the first half worsened the Bills' field position, put the defense on the field for additional plays, and generally made things easier for the Patriots' offense. If the Patriots' offense failed to capitalize on the opportunities Fitz gave them, that was hardly Fitz's doing. Similarly, one of the Bills' TD drives began just 24 yards away from the Patriots' end zone; thanks to a turnover generated by the Bills' defense. > Nothing HE did after that point lost the game for us. Are you telling me that the interception he threw with over 11 minutes left, with the Bills down by just two TDs, did not in any way contribute to the loss? Are you telling me that all the throws and scoring opportunities he missed over the course of the game were not part of the loss? > This defense just isn't very good--they gave up 45 points in the second half of a game they were well ahead in. Those 45 points weren't just the result of one big thing. They were caused by a lot of little things which added up. Sure, you can sweep all those little things into a big pile, put a label like "45 points" on it, and then point out that the defense's pile is bigger than Fitz's pile. But you then seem to say that because the defense's pile is bigger than Fitz's pile, the latter should be ignored. That's not what you should do after a loss. When you lose, you sweep all the failures by offense, defense, and special teams into one big pile. Usually, no one player will be responsible for more than 20 - 30% of that pile. Fitz's share of that pile was plenty big. The same could also be said of each of the Bills' four starting defensive linemen. Gilmore's share was small to nonexistent; even though the defense as a whole played poorly.

> The point I'm making is that no amount of statistical justification, for or against the case to select > Rob Johnson, could have been used to influence Tom Donahoe's decision one way or the other. > You dismiss the emotional aspects entirely as if stats are the only drivers of decision making. I do not dismiss the emotional aspects. I feel that TD's emotions were a big reason why he made an avoidable error. (As had also been the case on other occasions.) > Tom Donahoe was PRECLUDED from selecting a QB in the first round of his first draft. Precluded by what: his own preconceptions, or by a direct order from Ralph Wilson? If the latter, then you lay the blame at Wilson's feet. If the former, you analyze where TD went wrong in forming his preconceptions and gut-level decisions, to avoid repeating that category of error in the future. > But if you're into a statistical analysis, I'd be interested in seeing some data on those QBs selected in the > first round with careers similar to Brees and with superior physical measureables to boot. It depends on what you mean by "similar." Do you mean "similar statistically," or "similar in having proved themselves as polished pocket passers at the college level." If the latter, then yes: I too would be interested in viewing the data. I'm sure there are a fair number of first round busts sprinkled into that group, just as there are amongst first round players chosen at any position. But I also feel confident that the bust rate is lower among polished pocket passers than among first round QBs selected primarily for their physical gifts. > GMs just don't have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and that's really all this exercise comes down to. Earlier in this discussion, you seemed to be of the opinion that barring an extraordinary stroke of luck (such as taking Tom Brady in the 6th round) there was very little the Bills could have done to have addressed their QB position over the last 10 - 15 years. I have pointed to at least three things they could have done to have obtained a franchise QB. 1) Take Drew Brees in 2001. 2) Trade up for Roethlisberger in 2004. 3) Eschew the Losman trade in 2004; thereby allowing themselves to draft Aaron Rodgers with our first round pick in 2005. How much of the above represents 20/20 hindsight, and how much was knowable at the time? Going into the 2001 draft, I liked the idea of Drew Brees, and had misgivings about Johnson and his sacks. I liked the idea of taking Brees, but was not in love with it. Going into the 2004 draft, I would have been strongly in favor of trading up for one of the Big Three. Likewise, I was strongly opposed to the idea of taking Losman; because Losman belongs to the general category of QBs upon whom I don't want to use first round picks. TD's misplaced faith in Losman cost us two franchise QBs. It cost us Roethlisberger, because TD thought to himself, why pay full price for a guy like Big Ben, when I can get someone equally good like Losman for a fraction of the cost? It also cost us Aaron Rodgers: part of the Losman deal involved trading away our first round pick of 2005. > You and others claim we've ignored the most important position. I disagree. I do not recall having used the word "ignored." A word like that expresses things in absolute terms; and turns this into a binary discussion. I have stated that in the draft, the Bills have under-emphasized the QB position, while greatly over-emphasizing positions such as DB and RB. A comparison of Bills' first round picks spent on QBs versus RBs and DBs bears me out. > There's a difference between being wrong about something and ignoring it. And we've been plenty > wrong. I'd say that we not only didn't ignore it, we obsessed over it and panicked. I take issue with the word "obsessed," but otherwise agree with the above. The Bills' approach was indeed reactive, panicky, and wrong-headed. It was also penny wise, pound foolish. I wish TD had realized it's better to pay a high price, once, for The Guy, than to use quick fixes (Bledsoe) or half measures (Losman), and never get the problem solved. > I'm glad Nix isn't that type of GM. He's got a game manager, he's building the surrounding cast, and when he has a chance to take that ONE guy, he will. I agree that thus far, Nix's approach seems more cool-headed and disciplined than TD's or Marv's had been. I hope he continues to apply that disciplined approach when an opportunity arises to find The Guy at QB position. I also hope he realizes that a disciplined approach might well require him to pay a high price to trade up. But while I'm hopeful about all this, I've learned that as a Bills fan, I should never count my chickens until they're hatched, fully grown, and have begun laying eggs of their own.

Okay, I'll bite. Bledsoe's career has two distinct stages. During the first stage, he played like a Hall of Famer. During the second stage, he played like just another guy. By the time Belichick arrived in New England, Bledsoe had already entered the "just another guy" stage of his career. I am not aware of Belichick's coaching staff doing anything particularly innovative to get Bledsoe back into his Hall of Fame mode. The thing about Bledsoe is that he needs a while to scan the field and process information. But if you give him time in the pocket, he can make some beautiful throws. He's a much more accurate downfield passer than Losman, even though both QBs have strong arms. To take full advantage of a QB like Bledsoe, you need a good running game to take pressure off the passing game, a very good OL to give him plenty of time to throw, and at least one deep threat like Peerless Price or Lee Evans. Maybe Belichick lacked the personnel necessary to install a Bledsoe-friendly offense. I think there's a tendency among some here to blame Fitz's interceptions on non-Fitz factors. I've heard that he was forcing things in an effort to make up for the porous defense. I've heard that the INTs are because Fitz has been asked to be more than just a game manager. I disagree with those explanations. The reason for Fitz's INTs is his own inaccuracy. Over the course of his career, Phil Simms averaged 7.2 yards per attempt. In Fitz's best season, he averaged 6.8 yards per attempt. In Fitz's best non-Gailey season, he averaged just 6.3 yards per attempt. Gailey is getting more out of Fitz than other coaches did. But he can't reasonably be expected to do with Fitz what the Giants did with Simms; because Simms was a much better quarterback than Fitz.

> This is what I mean about the need to consider EVERYTHING when judging the Bills' decision to bypass Drew Brees in the 2001 draft. What you see as "considering everything" I see as an exercise in getting distracted from the core question. The core question here being: based on the data available as of the end of the 2000 season, what were the odds of Rob Johnson becoming a successful NFL QB? > Do you think for a minute when they made that decision a full two months before the draft, that > they were going to encourage ANOTHER QB controversy and countermand their OWN decision > by drafting another QB in the first round? Yes, that's exactly what they should have done. Their focus shouldn't have been on trying to eliminate the possibility of short term QB controversies, or on trying to justify their decision to go with Johnson over Flutie. For any decisions relating to the QB position, the only focus should have been on finding a long term answer. Period. Having Johnson + Brees on the roster gives you a better shot at finding that long term answer than having Johnson alone. This is especially true given the many (legitimate) concerns about Johnson. > It doesn't matter if they were wrong or not. What matters is whether the decision-making process they used maximized their probability of success, based on the data available at the time. Clearly, it did not. The things you wrote about in your post represent their probable rationale for having adopted a non-optimal decision-making process. > They had LEGITIMATE reasons not to draft Brees when, only three years earlier, they invested a top 10 draft pick and a record contract in Rob Johnson. Both the draft pick and the contract were sunk costs. The Bills shouldn't have made a decision based on sunk costs, or on the basis of the player they thought they were getting when they traded for Johnson in the first place. Their decision should have been made solely on the basis of the player they actually received. > And no amount of elegant statistic bending was going to convince them otherwise. Are you suggesting that my earlier statement--in which I pointed out Johnson took a lot of sacks--was an exercise in "elegant statistical bending"? If so, what point are you trying to make by applying that label?

> Can we trace the lack of TEAM confidence back to Ryan Fitzpatrick? I agree that if the Bills had Aaron Rodgers under center instead of Fitzpatrick, team confidence would greatly improve. On the other hand, other teams have had a high level of confidence, despite also having had mediocre QBs. I don't think Fitzpatrick can be held wholly responsible for the lack of team confidence. > Would either head coach stick by their guy after last weeks game considering the embarrassing loss to the NY Jets? The problem is that the long term answer at quarterback is not yet on the roster. Shuffling guys like Vince Young, Jackson, and Thigpen into or out of the starting lineup won't create any lasting benefit, for the same reason that the Todd Collins/Billy Joe Hobart QB competition did nothing to help the Bills over the long run. > #2 Can the Buffalo Bills win with a limited short pass offense through the playoffs? If you had a Joe Montana running that offense, then yes. With Fitzpatrick, not so much so. > I believe both head coaches would have built the offense around Vince Young rather then force a complicated offense on a guy that can't handle it. Bill Belichick doesn't exactly have a team bursting with backup QB talent behind Tom Brady. And yet he eschewed the chance to sign Vince Young twice: once before the Bills signed him, and a second time after we cut him. Belichick does not view Vince Young as the answer to New England's problems at backup QB. We should not view him as the answer to our problems at starting QB. > Benching a poor quarterback can help a team re focus and eliminate the main cause of turnovers. Agreed, but there are no better options on the roster right now. Once Tavaris Jackson learns the playbook he could provide a short-term boost. (Until defenses figure him out.) But why on earth would we want that? A flash in the pan at the QB position would hurt our draft position, while doing nothing whatever to solve the long-term problem at quarterback. If the Bills are serious about getting that problem solved, the best possible thing they could do would be to go 2-14. That would give them the early pick necessary to take one of the top-rated QBs.

> Brees was simply not a logical choice at the time given our ongoing investment in Rob Johnson. GREAT hindsight pick, though. Brees was more than just a great hindsight pick. He would have been a great pick based on the information available at the time. By the time the 2001 draft rolled around, Rob Johnson had been a Buffalo Bill for three years. In his first two years as a Bill, he had a ridiculously good yards per attempt stat. But yards per attempt doesn't take sacks into account, and Johnson was a sack waiting to happen. In the 2000 season--his third as a Bill--Johnson averaged just 6.9 yards per attempt --not much better than what Fitz has shown us these past few years. Also of concern was the fact that Johnson was sacked 49 times in 12 games. The sack waiting to happen thing was nothing new: back in '98, Johnson had been sacked 29 times in just 8 games (including 6 starts). Johnson was only sacked once in 1999; mostly because he spent almost all of that year on the bench. Going into the 2001 draft, TD knew that in his three years as a Bill, Rob Johnson had failed to develop even the barest minimum of sack avoidance technique. Could Johnson have fixed that problem later in his career? Yes, it was a possibility. But it was very, very far from being a certainty. TD also knew that Drew Brees had established himself as a proven pocket passer at the college level. That's the kind of first round QB most likely to have success in the NFL. Had TD been 90 - 95% sure Johnson would have worked out, then maybe one could justify passing on Drew Brees. But the data TD had about Johnson did not justify anywhere near that 90 - 95% level of confidence. If there's only a 20 - 30% chance of Johnson working out, why not give yourself another opportunity to make something good happen at the QB position? What's the worst that can happen? That you end up with two good QBs, and trade one away for draft picks? A Cutler-level QB is worth two first round picks in a trade. A Marshawn Lynch-level RB is worth a 4th + 6th rounder. It's much better to have to trade away a surplus of talent at the QB position than at the RB position!

> I maintain that just because their efforts have failed, they have indeed invested 1st round assets in the position in order to address it. I maintain that the first round resources they've invested have been insufficient given the scale of the need and the magnitude of importance of the position. When they did invest significant resources, there was generally some element of short-sightedness or other avoidable error involved. As I mentioned earlier, Losman fit the profile of a first round QB bust: great physical tools, but did not prove himself as a pocket passer at the college level. Likewise, trading away a first round pick for another team's aging backup QB, as they did with Bledsoe, is typically a bad idea, for reasons I hope are obvious. > If you feel you can make a case for one of those QBs they've passed on, be my guest. Okay. In 2001, the Bills took Nate Clements 21st overall. Drew Brees was taken 32nd overall. In 2004, TD tried to trade up for Roethlisberger, but balked when the price was too high. If you're convinced a guy can be your franchise QB, you shouldn't walk away because you're being slightly overcharged. In 2005, Aaron Rodgers was taken 26th overall. Had TD not traded away the Bills' first round pick in that draft for the Losman deal, he could and should have taken Rodgers with that pick. In 2006, Marv took Donte Whitner 8th overall, when he could have taken Cutler. Say what you will about Cutler, he was traded away for two first round picks, plus Kyle Orton, plus some other stuff. That's two more first round picks, one more Kyle Orton, and one more instance of other stuff than the Bills were awarded for Whitner's departure. In 2008, the Bills took Leodis McKelvin 11th overall. Joe Flacco went 18th overall. Flacco is by no means a top-5 QB, but he's definitely top-15. He's also better than any Bills QB from the TD/Marv/Brandon/Nix eras. I agree with you that opportunities to obtain great--or even good--QBs are rare. That's precisely why, when you do encounter such an opportunity, you need to jump all over it. As TD should have done with the Roethlisberger trade. (Although, on a personal level, I'd feel very uncomfortable rooting for a rapist.) > Please bear in mind other considerations the team had in each round of each draft for the last 15 years. Why? If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's one available, you take him. If that means waiting a year or two to fill a hole at some other position, so be it.

The bolded text is a myth. Fitz's third interception occurred when the Bills were down by 14 points, with 11:14 to go in the fourth quarter. If Peyton Manning is down by two touchdowns with over eleven minutes to play, does he think to himself, This game is already over. Time to start throwing some more INTs. Of course not! That's a defeatist attitude, and we as fans should not be defeatist. Secondly, I see at least two categories for INTs. 1) Badly thrown passes. 2) Deliberately taking risks in order to force something. There are situations in which the defense will have a chance to intercept no matter how perfectly you throw the pass. Fitz's third interception was picked off because it was an inaccurate pass. (As opposed to having been an accurate pass deliberately thrown to a WR surrounded by defensive traffic.) Neither of the two excuses I've seen for that INT hold water. That particular pass perfectly demonstrates why Fitz leaves much to be desired as an NFL QB. On the other hand, I agree with your statement that Fitz is not a bottom-five QB. He's a step or two above guys like Sanchez or Cassell.

Good post, and I agree with what you've written. Going into the 2011 draft, I hinted that the Bills should at least consider going after A.J. Green. I sensed that A.J. Green might well become a special player--a far more special player than Dareus. But I did not come right out and say that the Bills should choose Green over Dareus. I'm starting to wish that I had. Ideally, you want your defensive line to do three things: 1) control the line of scrimmage, 2) generate pressure and sacks, and 3) absorb lots of double teams; thereby freeing up the back seven to make plays. I'm not convinced the Bills' defensive line did any of those things particularly well, in either half. One of the reasons why the Patriots' TEs were able to physically dominate guys like Scott is because the Patriots didn't need to keep their TEs in to block. The Bills' defensive linemen were for the most part being handled one-on-one. None of the Bills' defensive linemen played well. > I see 4 down lineman getting blocked and staying blocked...And that is a HUGE problem...They better fix it quick...Or this Season is over... Agreed with the getting and staying blocked part. But let's say, hypothetically speaking, that the Bills make no changes during the season, and go 4-12 or 5-11 as a result. A record like that would put us at or near a draft position in which to take one of the top-rated QBs. (Trading up by a few slots is a lot less painful than trading up by many slots!) Additionally, that record would at very least get Wannstedt fired for his defensive coaching (or lack thereof). Next year's Bills team would have a real quarterback--or at very least a rookie who will gradually become one. It would also (hopefully) have a real defensive coordinator. Worse things could happen than that, even if the price for those things is getting beaten up a lot over the next 12 games.

I disagree with your disagreement! KOKBILLS made a very good point about how the defensive line has not lived up to the hype or the enormous investment (in terms of money and draft picks). That DL should have accomplished much more against the Patriots, whatever defensive scheme had been called! Wannstedt relied on that defensive line to do certain things--as he very well should have been able to do--and it let him down. Does that mean that Wannstedt called a great game, or even a credible game? Of course not. If I was to evaluate his performance as DC based on that one game only, I'd say he's not what I'm looking for in a defensive coordinator. I'm not complaining about the lack of blitzing. The Giants didn't blitz much against the Patriots either, the last time they met the Patriots in the Super Bowl. But the Giants defense was much more physical in disrupting the Patriots' routes, and generally had much more of a "go for the throat" mentality, even though they only rushed four guys. To the extent that you don't want to let Wannstedt off the hook for a bad performance, I'll agree with you. Just as I'll agree with KOKBILLS for not wanting to let the DL off the hook for being nothing at all like what Bills fans had hoped for or expected. I think that Promo's two ideas are connected. He thinks that throwing Wannstedt under the bus is a bad idea, and that Gailey will avoid throwing him under the bus by publicly expressing his faith in him. I agree with both of those things. Even if Gailey is 100% sure he's going to fire Wannstedt at the end of the season, he gains nothing by announcing that intention now. Gains nothing, that is, beyond the perception that he is disloyal to his subordinates. A perception which would make Gailey's coaching staff a less attractive destination for would-be replacements to Wannstedt.

This.

Just to add to what you've written: in another thread, Nitro correctly pointed out there were vast differences between what the Giants did to the Patriots in that Super Bowl, and what Wannstedt did on Sunday.

Good post. I'm getting tired of the excuse-making for Fitz. Based on some of the comments I've read, you'd that it's no big deal for a QB to throw four interceptions--almost expected, in fact. As a great man "I don't care who you play. Whether it's a high school team, a junior college team, a college team, much less an NFL team, when you turn the ball over five times, four interceptions . . . you ain't going to beat anybody I just talked about. Anybody. That was a disgraceful performance. . . . We gave it away." Over the course of that game, the Bills' offense averaged just 1.75 points per possession. That's typically not going to be enough to beat the Patriots. Over the course of the game, the Patriots averaged . . . 3.5 points per possession! The Patriots averaged a mere 1 point per possession in the first half, and 5.6 points per possession in the second half. Both teams had a lot of possessions because this game was rich with turnovers, three-and-outs, and quick-scoring drives. Allowing 3.5 points per drive--as the defense did--is unacceptable. Scoring just 1.75 points per possession--as the offense did--is also unacceptable. Much of the blame for the latter is on Fitz. Fully 25% of the Bills' possessions were wasted because of his INTs alone. Other Bills' possessions turned into squandered scoring opportunities because of his inaccurate throws. Put a real QB back there, and that 1.75 points per possession stat would have gone up a lot. Probably not enough for the Bills to win, but it would have been a much closer game.

The Bledsoe trade basically amounted to trading away a first round pick for another team's aging backup quarterback. That's not the sort of action I had in mind when I said I wanted the Bills to meaningfully address the QB position. (Which is why I opposed the Bledsoe trade at the time it was made.) Leading up to the 2004 draft, most commentators talked a lot about the big three QBs. TD tried unsuccessfully to trade up for one of the big three QBs--for Roethlisberger, in fact. I vaguely recollect that the trade fell through after Houston's asking price became too high. After the Roethlisberger trade fell through, TD convinced himself that trading back into the first round for Losman was somehow a good idea. "He's just as good a passer as the big three," TD claimed, "and he's a faster runner." Unlike the big three, Losman had not proved himself as a pocket passer at the college level. But Losman had great physical tools. In other words, he fit the profile for a typical first round bust. This is why I was opposed to the Losman pick pretty much from the very beginning. Trent Edwards was a third round pick. The odds are heavily against third round picks at just about any position working out. This isn't just about spending draft day resources on a QB. It's about spending those resources intelligently. It was knowable in advance that the Bledsoe trade and the Losman pick would almost certainly fail. Had the Bills been an intelligently run organization during that time, they would have eschewed those moves, and would instead have used draft day resources on QB moves which had a more realistic chance of long term success. It's also worth bearing in mind that, during the last 40 years, the Bills have used their first pick of the draft on a RB 10 different times, on a DB another 10 times, and on a QB never. (Unless you count the Rob Johnson trade.) Based on how the Bills allocate draft day resources, you would think that RB and DB were more important positions than QB. The Bills have basically had two options. 1) Go for the QBs that everyone else wants, and that will typically be taken near the top of the draft. This means spending a king's ransom to trade up. 2) Try to outsmart everyone else by taking a QB outside the top 15, and then hope that the teams who passed on him were wrong. Given that choice, the Bills have almost always chosen option B. The problem with that is that the Bills are not smarter than the other teams in the league--on the contrary. The QBs who get chosen early in the draft are often worth much, much more than the king's ransom it would have taken to have acquired them. The Bills' QB strategy has been penny wise, pound foolish--a foolishness compounded by shortsighted thinking, poor talent evaluation, wishful thinking, and a lack of mental discipline.

Trent Dilfer led the Ravens to a Super Bowl win. No one calls him a franchise QB. Nor should they. As for Jack Kemp's stats: he had a career QB rating of 57.3, and a TD:INT ratio of 0.62. Compare those stats to Alex van Pelt's career QB rating of 64.1, and his TD/INT ratio of 0.67. The one statistical measure in which Jack Kemp outshines Alex van Pelt is in yards per attempt. Kemp averaged a solid 6.9 yards per attempt, as compared to a lowly 6.3 yards per attempt for van Pelt. Yards per attempt correctly indicates that Kemp was a much better QB than van Pelt, even if the other statistical measures seem to say otherwise. But 6.9 yards per attempt is not typically a number I'd expect of a franchise QB, not even after adjusting for different eras. Johnny Unitas played in that same era--albeit in a different league--and averaged 7.8 yards per attempt. You don't have to be Unitas to be a franchise QB, but you do have to be closer to Unitas than you are to Alex van Pelt. By every meaningful statistical measurement--including yards per attempt--Kemp was closer to Alex van Pelt level than to Unitas.

I agree with everything you've written in your post. I did not mean to put words in your mouth, or to suggest that you'd claimed that finding a franchise QB is easy. As you, I, and apuszczalowski have agreed, it's very difficult to find one. Difficult, but vital. I agree the lack of a franchise QB is a reflection on the organization. Finding a franchise QB is like a game of musical chairs, played with 32 people and maybe seven or eight chairs. When playing a game like that, an organization like the Bills can't have a relaxed, "Let the chairs come to you" type attitude. They need to pick a chair, and then do whatever it takes to secure it.

I agree with the point you've made in your post, just as I agree with the point apuszczalowski made in his. As apuszczalowski pointed out, franchise level QBs are rare. This is why, statistically, most teams are destined to go long periods without having one. Take the AFC East for example. There has been one franchise QB in Jets' franchise history (Joe Namath). There have been two franchise QBs in Dolphins' franchise history. There have been 1.5 franchise QBs in Patriots' history (the first half of Bledsoe's career, and Tom Brady). There has been one franchise QB in Bills' history (Jim Kelly). For anyone who says Jack Kemp, my response is: look at his stats. Finding a franchise QB is difficult. But it's also the one thing which does the most to separate championship teams from also-rans. If your goal is to win the Super Bowl, not having a franchise QB is not an option.

Lol, no, I'm not him. But now that I think about it, I realize that both he and I have that "comments from an unexpected direction" thing going on. Thanks!

Ralph Wilson needs to do whatever it takes to get the Bills a Super Bowl win. Whatever. It. Takes. Here is the plan. Step 1: Ralph Wilson has a long talk with his estate attorney. He arranges things so that 90% of the money garnered from the sale of the Bills will be put into a non-profit research organization. A genetics research organization! The remaining 10% goes to his current heirs. Step 2: Upon being funded, the genetic research organization will buy an island somewhere. Someplace far from anyone in particular, that nobody really notices, with at least a few square miles of space. Step 3: A genetics research facility will be quietly--very quietly!--established on that island. There will be a few researchers, their assistants, their families, and some cooks and maintenance people. Call it 30 - 50 people total. Step 4: The genetics researchers will obtain bone marrow samples from some of the best QBs ever to play the game, like Joe Montana and Aaron Rodgers. That will take care of the QB position. Step 5: To take care of the other positions--to really and truly take care of them--the researchers will experiment with adding a little non-human DNA to human subjects. Take the ostrich for example. Ostriches are bipeds, just like humans. Adult ostriches typically weigh between 140 - 320 pounds. Unlike humans, ostriches can run over 40 MPH, and can sustain speeds of 30 MPH over long distances. The genetic researchers would determine which particular genes are responsible for that, and then splice them into the genetic sequence of the team they're building. Step 6: The researchers would actually create two football teams' worth of players: one with ostrich DNA infused, the other with some feline DNA added. Players on the former team would be given names like Byrd, and would be described as ball hawks. Players on the latter team would be praised for their catlike quickness and reflexes. Step 7: People born as a result of this genetic engineering project would be brought up to believe that their true purpose in life is to sign with the Buffalo Bills as undrafted free agents. To remain loyal to the Bills, even if other teams make substantially better offers in free agency. They will be told that it is always morally wrong to sign with any team other than the Bills. They will also be told that any player who signs a long extension with the Bills will be awarded the chance to marry one of the beautiful, highly intelligent blondes that have been genetically engineered on another island owned by the genetics research center. Step 8: One of the reasons you created two teams is so that the two teams could scrimmage each other--a lot!--while the players are growing up. The other reason is for redundancy; in case one or the other of your genetic experiments didn't yield the results for which you hoped. Step 9: About 30 years after Ralph's passing, a new kind of Buffalo Bills team would step on the field. The offense would be led by a clone of Joe Montana or Aaron Rodgers. Their offensive and defensive linemen would be much faster than the other team's WRs. And much stronger than the other team's linemen. As for this team's WRs and DBs: you don't even want to know how fast they'd be! This team would destroy--absolutely obliterate--any other team unlucky enough to get in its path. The Bills would dictate to their opponents each and every week. They would go 19-0 and win the Super Bowl. Like I wrote at the beginning of this post, Ralph Wilson should do whatever it takes for the Bills to get a Super Bowl win. Literally.

Your point about the need for a QB is spot-on, and very well expressed. I also agree with most of Bill's post--especially when he wrote, "Mario and Anderson were absolutely NOT better than the combo of Edwards, Kelsay, and Carrington last season." We've spent a ton on that DL, in terms of money and draft picks. A performance like today's is not acceptable. At least Gilmore had a very good day today!

> Brady may be the greatest qb ever when his career is over. I disagree: I'd put Joe Montana, Steve Young, Johnny Unitas, Aaron Rodgers, Peyton Manning, and probably a few other QBs ahead of Brady. > Sorry Fitz doesn't meet your lofty standards. If Fitz was half a step below Brady, the Bills could use a strong supporting cast to make up for that fact. But if Fitz is two or three steps below Brady, it becomes much harder to balance that out with a better supporting cast.