Orton's Arm

The defense got addressed in a big way in the offseason. The Bills seem to have drafted two starting-quality CBs, signed two starting-quality DEs, and drafted additional talent at linebacker. Plus they upgraded their defensive coordinator. Let's at least wait and see how all those new additions do before assuming defense is still the problem. Let's say that there are a few things about the interior of your house which bug you. So you fix them. Making a few things better only serves to call attention to other flaws. Flaws which you might not have paid much attention to previously. On paper, the Bills have fixed most of their problems on defense, at LT, and at speed WR. Getting that other stuff taken care of only makes their problems at QB more obvious.

I do remember Buddy saying that he'd draft a first round QB if the right one was there. On the other hand, Fitz's lucrative contract extension seems to indicate the front office has a greater level of faith in him than I have. Right now, I get the sense that Buddy would draft a QB if a good one was available when the Bills picked. That's good, but may not be good enough. I'd like to see Buddy trade up in the first round, if that's what it takes to get a franchise QB. I'm not sure he's quite prepared to do that just yet, but I'd like him to be. > If you don't want to give them your hope for something not tangible, you need to rethink your position on investing > any more emotional energy into the team until they find Fitz's replacement. I feel, strongly, that the Bills are highly unlikely to win a Super Bowl until they find their franchise QB. But in the meantime, there are still things about which we can get legitimately excited. I was an early fan of Fred Jackson and of Stevie Johnson. This year I'm excited about players like Gilmore and Glenn. A refusal to accept false hope is not the same thing as a refusal to see positive things which really do exist. I've found that seeing things as they actually are makes it easier to cope with being a Bills fan.

I can't speak for #34 fan. But back when the Bills were around 5-2, I started a thread entitled "The Bills' method of winning is unsustainable." Which it was. As a Bills fan, I'm desperate for a Super Bowl win. But I have no interest in being fed false hope, year after year. If I'm going to give this team my hope and my optimism, it needs to be for something real. Not some flashy Terrell Owens signing, or some idiotic Donte Whitner draft pick defended by those who assume that the Bills' front office knows best. What have they seen over the last 10 - 15 years to make them reach that conclusion? I like many of the things Nix has done as a GM. But he still hasn't found a quarterback. If he tells us he has, then he's wrong.

Four of the five things you mentioned were injury-related. The fifth was defenses adjusting to take advantage of the above-described injuries. You are correct to assert those things were part of our offensive decline. But they were only a part. Here are a few others to add to the list: The Bills faced a number of bad pass defenses early in the season. This made their passing game look a lot better than it actually was. Early in the season, defenses had not yet adjusted to Gailey's new style of offense. We first saw those adjustments in the Bengals game, long before our offense had been devastated by injuries. The result: the Bengals largely shut down the Bills' offense. The Bills' defense generated a lot of turnovers early in the season; such as their four interceptions the first time they faced the Patriots. This meant there were often times when the offense didn't have to drive the length of the field in order to score. The Bills' problems on offense are serious and deap-seated, and they start at the quarterback position. Unless or until that position is upgraded, the Bills are very unlikely to be able to keep up with the best offenses in the NFL. In Nix's first draft, there was no available QB worthy of being picked 9th overall. In his second draft, there was no available QB worthy of being picked 3rd overall. Etc. So the Bills haven't had many opportunities to upgrade the QB position. The time has come to fix that. If (for example) the Bills have the 10th overall pick in the upcoming draft, and if the best QB of the draft is expected to go 7th overall, then the Bills need to trade up to 6th overall or higher! If that means giving up a lot of players and/or draft picks, then you give them up. The Bills need a franchise QB; and they should be prepared to pay a high price to get one. In the long run, they'll be very happy they did.

Maybe I'm misreading you, but the above seems a lot like an all-or-nothing perspective. Either a piece of information gives you a 100% chance of making the right decision (all) or else it's worth nothing. I don't know if you're using that all-or-nothing logic or not. But even if you're not, others here certainly have. Suppose one were to take that logic and apply it to making loans. Banks would say, "There are some cases in which people with high credit ratings have defaulted on loans. There have also been times when people with low credit ratings have paid back their loans as agreed. Therefore, credit ratings mean nothing, and we'll stop using them." Concepts like "more likely" and "less likely" get thrown out the window, because there is no room for them within this all or nothing logic. The OP has shown that Travaris Jackson played reasonably well in Seattle. As you pointed out, that's not a guarantee he'll play well in Buffalo. But all else being equal, which QB would you think is more likely to play well here: someone with bad stats from his previous stints, or someone who did well previously? Dismissing what the OP wrote (as your earlier posts seemed to do) contributes nothing to this thread. If you want to make the case that Travaris Jackson might be another Kolb story waiting to happen, fine. Make that case. Show us why you think Buffalo's offensive system is a worse fit for Travaris Jackson than Seattle's had been. Or show us how defenses will adapt to Travaris Jackson's style of play after they're done figuring out his weaknesses. Maybe you're not familiar enough with Travaris Jackson's strengths and weaknesses, or with Seattle's offensive system, to want to make arguments like that. That's okay too. I'd be perfectly happy with you reminding us that his comparative success in Seattle is not a guarantee of success in Buffalo. Then again, there are no guarantees in football. You could trade for a franchise QB in the prime of his career, only to have him experience a career-ending injury the very next week. There are no guarantees--there are only varying degrees of probability. The OP has made a meaningful contribution to that discussion of probability.

Nix doesn't like to use first round picks on guys with major character question marks. That's one of the reasons he didn't draft Floyd. Maybe that strategy costs him a talented player here and there. But it also helps him avoid a lot of busts. With McGee and Florence getting on in years, and with little young talent to replace them, the Bills clearly needed a CB. Gilmore looks like he'll fill that hole admirably. I agree the Bills need more talent at WR. Nix hasn't had the early picks necessary to fill all this team's holes; and #2 and #3 WR are holes which haven't yet gotten filled. (Unless Graham becomes a good starter.) If you want to point to missed opportunities to draft good WRs in the first round, one which comes to mind is A.J. Green. Granted, taking Green would have meant passing up Dareus; and this board would have exploded had the Bills done that. On the other hand, Green made the Pro Bowl in his rookie year, and looks like he could end up in the Hall of Fame when all is said and done. If the Bills' WR corps consisted of a guy like that as the #1, Stevie Johnson as the #2, and a speed guy like Graham as #3, it would be feared by defensive coordinators around the league. But even if the Bills had done this, they would still need a quarterback. And they would need someone to take Dareus's place on the defensive line.

The word "decimated" has its origin in Roman times. When the Roman army didn't fight as well or as hard as it should have, its leaders would sometimes respond by decimating it. The soldiers would be lined up, and every tenth soldier would have to step forward. The soldiers who stepped forward would then be killed by the rest. The army would then be told, "If you don't want this to happen to you again, don't show cowardice when facing the enemy." So that's the origin of "decimated," which, taken literally, means losing one out of every ten. Its meaning has become broader in post-Roman times, however.

What I wrote about Fitz isn't just something I started saying this past week. Fitz does not have the same level of throwing accuracy you'd expect a franchise QB to have. Or anywhere close. This means that the Bills will be at a disadvantage when facing a team with a franchise QB. Sure, if that team is one-dimensional--if they have a franchise QB and not much else--then the team Nix has built has a very solid chance of winning that game. But if the team has a franchise QB + a reasonably complete team around him--such as the Giants--then odds are heavily in favor of that other team winning. Especially in the postseason, when better teams seem less likely to suffer fluke losses to inferior teams.

It depends on what you mean by "the guy." If you mean "the guy who's likely to be quarterbacking the Bills for the next few years," then yes, he's the guy. But if you mean, "the guy who can give the Bills a real chance at beating teams like the Giants in the postseason," then there's no way he's the guy. Not unless he significantly upgrades his accuracy.

The Bills will need to do a whole lot more QB shuffling than this before the position gets fixed! Okay, maybe this move makes sense in itself, because the Bills' backups haven't looked good. But that said, I don't see any quarterback on the Bills' roster--from Ryan Fitzpatrick on down--as the long-term answer at his place on the depth chart.

Any time a punter is your team's MVP, it's not good news! That said, those who've argued that Moorman is on the decline have made a convincing case. I could easily envision Nix keeping Powell, and using him as a punter + kickoff specialist. If Powell can kick the ball off, you have to wonder if he could also be used as a backup placekicker in case Lindell gets hurt. Or if you could use him on very long field goal attempts.

I respect your post. I'm not saying I agree with you 100%. But it's clear you've put serious thought into forming your opinions. As for Graham: there's a legitimate role for a speed WR on an offense. John Taylor with the 49ers offense in the '80s. Alvin Harper with the Cowboys of the '90s. Peerless Price with the 2002 Bills. A guy like that won't necessarily catch a lot of passes, or put up yardage totals which compare to the offense's go-to WR. But he's still an important component of the offense as a whole. Alvin Harper had 1547 receiving yards in his college career. John Taylor had over 2,400 college receiving yards, and a better NFL career than Harper. It's unlikely Graham is another John Taylor. But maybe Graham is the kind of guy who will average around 600 receiving yards per year as a pro; while also making defenses aware that he's a threat to burn them deep. If you don't htink there's a significant chance of that happening, show me why it's highly unlikely to happen. If you do, I'll accept your opinion. I don't claim to have researched this as thoroughly as you have; and I'm open to changing my opinion in light of additional information.

The New York Times did a study which showed that pass defense is four times as important as run defense. (For those familiar with statistics: it was a multiple linear regression analysis, it employed six independent variables, the dependent variable used was the number of wins, and had an r^2 of 0.8.) Anyway, pass defense is more important than run defense. As I see it, there are two ways a player can make an elite-level contribution to your pass defense. 1) He can be a very good pass rusher. 2) He can cover a good receiver one-on-one. In Wannestedt's defense, it's rare for a linebacker to be asked to blitz. So it's not like Kuechley would have that many opportunities to rush the passer. In terms of pass defense, you're comparing Gilmore's pass coverage abilities to those of Kuechley. Which would you feel more comfortable doing: leaving Gilmore in one-on-one pass coverage against an elite WR like Larry Fitzgerald? Or leaving Kuechley in one-on-one coverage against an elite TE like Gronkowski? Kuechley is considered a very good coverage linebacker, so he'd make a strong case for himself. But at the end of the day, I strongly suspect that Gilmore will be better at covering WRs than Kuechley will be at covering TEs. So the Bills probably got the better player--at least in terms of pass coverage. But, you could argue, Kuechley would have added a lot more to the Bills' run defense than Gilmore. Even if run defense isn't as important as pass defense, that upgrade still has significant value. Maybe enough to make up for the difference in pass coverage ability. But! I would argue that the Bills have no business covering TEs like Gronkowski with linebackers. They should be covering them with safeties. Safety is a source of strength for the Bills, with players like Byrd and George Wilson on the roster. Granted, if you had a player like Kuechley on the roster, you could have him cover Gronkowski, instead of, for example, having George Wilson do it. But I'm not convinced Kuechley would be that huge an upgrade in coverage over George Wilson. Gilmore on the other team's best WR + George Wilson on the other team's best TE gives you much better coverage than Aaron Williams on the other team's best WR + Kuechley on the other team's best TE. That's why Gilmore was such a good pick for us; and why he's a better addition than Kuechley would have been.

Good post. The Bills weren't as good as they looked in the first game against the Patriots, and weren't as bad as they looked in the second matchup. The Patriots had the better team last year. Fortunately, Nix has done a lot in the offseason to narrow the difference! Even if the Patriots still have an advantage in talent, there's no reason why Nix or anyone else on the Bills should fear them. Respect, yes. But not fear. I agree with those who've said that talk is cheap, and that Nix's statements don't prove anything. But as the GM, he sets the example for everyone else in the organization. From the very top of the organization to the very bottom, there should be a climate of not fearing anyone!

We haven't heard from him yet because he's still thinking this over. He needs more time to figure out whether he'd keep the offensive lineman or the defensive back.

I liked reading your post more than I liked the original article. You have dug deeper than the author of the article did. I looked up three great LTs from the past: Orlando Pace, Jon Ogden, and Tony Boselli. All three were known as excellent pass protectors. Their stats were as follows: Orlando Pace: 6'7", 325 Jon Ogden: 6'9", 345 Tony Boselli: 6'7", 322 Toward the end of Bruce Smith's career, Tony Boselli completely shut him down in a playoff game. The Bills' first playoff loss at home. As you mentioned, Bruce played at around 265. Today's pass rushing DLs are typically not smaller or lighter than that. And they're certainly not faster or more athletic than Bruce Smith! If a 320 - 330 pound LT could block an elite 265 pound DE back in the '90s, why on Earth has the league "evolved" to make this no longer possible today? That also seems to be the core point of your post; and I'd definitely agree with your core point!

Agreed. Jim Kelly toward the end of his career wasn't the same player he'd been in his prime. You could say the same about Dan Marino. Brett Favre's quality of play had also declined, even if you want to argue the physical skills were still there. Admittedly, Brady doesn't look like he's declined thus far. But when (not if) that decline happens, it could happen fast. You might get another five years out of Brady. But maybe Brady will begin his decline in year one of that span, or year 3, or some other year. There's no way of knowing. Once that decline begins, the rest of the Patriots team will have to hold itself to a higher standard if that team is to get a Super Bowl win--a higher enough standard to make up for Brady no longer being at his peak. The Patriots seem to be long-term thinkers. Witness the fact they're always eager to trade away their picks in the current draft for picks in future drafts. Trading away Brady for Luck would be a trade like that writ large. They'd have to love the chance to get 12 years younger at the QB position, while continuing to have a franchise QB. Even if you have to trade away two additional players for that, I think they'd conclude it would still be well worth it.

Good points!

If you were to trade the entire roster for Luck, while keeping Nix as the GM, the outcome I'd envision would be as follows: Year 1: The roster would consist of players other teams didn't want, plus Andrew Luck. The Bills would be a hot destination for UDFAs, because the UDFAs would know there aren't going to be any established players in front of them. This team would go 0-16. Andrew Luck will be the third string QB to keep him from getting killed behind the horrible OL. Year 2: With the first overall pick of the draft, Nix will select an elite player. He will continue to find good, solid players throughout the draft. He will add a few judicious free agent signings, and a few UDFAs will have emerged from the train wreck of year 1. Luck will start, but will not have a great year due to growing pains and an OL which is still below average. The Bills go 4-12. Year 3: The Bills pick in the top 5 of the draft; giving Nix the chance to take another elite player. Nix is able to fill a large number of holes in this draft. The offensive line is better, the offensive skill players are better, the team as a whole is better. The Bills go 9-7, and miss the playoffs. Year 4: Nix uses the draft to fill most of the remaining holes at starter positions, while also adding significantly to the team's depth. The Bills now have a core of elite players who are surrounded with good, solid teammates. This team goes 12-4, makes it to the conference championship, and is narrowly defeated. Fans point to a few mistakes born of inexperience which made the difference in the game. Year 5: With an extra year of experience for Luck and other core players, and with a talent infusion of yet another draft, the Bills win the Super Bowl. The Bills have become the most talented and complete team in the league. The Bills will continue to be a serious threat to win more Super Bowls for the next ten years.

Let me ask a slightly different question: if you were 100% convinced Luck is a franchise QB, would it be worth it to trade the Bills' roster in its entirety for him? The roster Nix inherited had very little talent. Of the players projected to be starters on opening day, very few were with the team prior to Nix. If Nix were to trade away the current roster in its entirety, it might take him about 3.5 years to rebuild it back to somewhere around its current level. If you trade the roster for Luck, you're about 3.5 years away from having a franchise QB + a very solid team with which to surround him. But if you try to attack the problem from the other direction, would you be able to find a franchise QB in the next 3.5 years? There has been exactly one franchise QB in the Bills' history: Jim Kelly. (Anyone who thinks Jack Kemp falls into the franchise category needs to take a closer look at his stats.) It's been about 20 years since Kelly hung up his cleats. Less than one franchise QB enters the NFL each year; which means that any given team has about a 1/40 chance of adding a franchise guy in any particular year. The Bills are not "due" to replace Kelly right now, nor will they be until 2023. But there's always the chance of getting unlucky (so to speak) and having to wait until long after 2023 to obtain Kelly's replacement. If you were to surround Luck with a team like the one Nix has assembled, the Bills would have a very good chance of winning the Super Bowl. So why not trade the roster for Luck (if that trade was available), and then use the next few years on re-assembling the kind of team Nix has currently put together? Even if it takes Nix five years to assemble a team like the one we have now, that still means the supporting cast will have been assembled long before the halfway point of Luck's career. From that point until the end of Luck's career, each season would represent a very real chance of achieving a Bills' Super Bowl win.

Unless Bell improves, the Eagles will have to accelerate their acquisition of Glenn.

The truth about Fitzpatrick is somewhere between what you've indicated in your post and what paintmyhouse has opined. Is Fitz "terrible"--i.e., a bottom-five starter? No. This past season Fitz averaged 6.7 yards per pass attempt, as opposed to 6.4 for Mark Sanchez. This, despite the fact that Sanchez had a stronger supporting cast than Fitz. That's just one example of a starting QB that Fitz is better than, and there are plenty of other examples. But is Fitz at or near a franchise level of play? Again, no. In Fitz's best season he averaged 6.8 yards per pass attempt. A QB typically needs to have a career average of 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt to be considered franchise. Just one season in that neighborhood is not enough. Trent Edwards, for example, averaged 7.2 yards per pass attempt in his best season, yet he can't even get a starting job. Fitz is a better quarterback than Edwards. Unfortunately, Fitz is closer to the Edwards level than he is to the Tom Brady level. As for the argument that Fitz "outplayed" Brady during the first matchup between the Bills and the Patriots . . . Tom Brady threw a total of 12 interceptions during the 2011 season, which works out to an average of 0.75 INTs per game. Ryan Fitzpatrick threw 23 INTs in 2011, or 1.4 per game. In the first Bills/Patriots matchup, Brady threw 4 INTs: over five times as many as his usual. Fitzpatrick threw (IIRC) two interceptions, or about 1.4 times as many as his usual. From a turnovers standpoint, Fitz's performance was fairly normal by his standards for the season. Whereas Brady's performance was absolutely terrible. Of the 12 INTs Brady threw in 2011, 1/3 were thrown in that particular game; and the other 2/3 were spread out among the remaining 15 games. Despite the advantage in turnover differential, the Patriots almost won that game. On plays that didn't involve turnovers, Brady was significantly more productive against the Bills' defense than Fitzpatrick was against the Patriots' injury riddled pass defense. That Patriots' passing defense had so many injuries that, statistically, it became one of the two worst passing defenses in NFL history. It's absurd to say Fitz is "terrible," because he isn't. But it's equally absurd to suggest that he's at or near a franchise level. The numbers to support that claim aren't there, and the throwing accuracy needed to support that claim isn't there either. It's possible for a team to win the Super Bowl without having a franchise QB. The most recent time that occurred was back in 2002 (2002 season, 2003 postseason), when Brad Johnson led the Bucs to a Super Bowl win. If everything goes exactly right, maybe the Bills will have as good a defense as the Bucs had that year. And maybe Fitz will have a career-best year, much like the year Brad Johnson had in 2002. And maybe the Bills' postseason opponents will be as weak as the ones the Bucs faced back in 2002. I personally feel that the probability of all that happening is vanishingly small. Another way for the Bills to win the Super Bowl would be for Fitz to greatly and permanently improve his throwing accuracy. If he takes a major step up in the quality of his play, and if that gets coupled with the kind of defense and offensive supporting cast we're all hoping to see, there's at least a chance of a Super Bowl win. But if Fitz fails to improve the quality of his play, the best possible thing the Bills could do would be to draft a QB in the first round. (Assuming, of course, that there's one worthy of being highly drafted when the Bills pick.)

Thus far Fitzpatrick has not shown us he can play at or near the same level as Jim Kelly. Nor has he shown he can play at the level a QB typically needs to achieve for his team to win the Super Bowl. The numbers from the first seven games of last season significantly overstate the quality of Fitz's play. He'd been going against bad pass defenses which had not yet adapted to Gailey's new style of offense. If Fitz greatly and permanently improves the quality of his play, and if the Bills win a Super Bowl in part because of that, then and only then would it be time to have the Fitz/Kelly conversation. But if the Bills pull a Bucs of 2002, there would be no need to compare Fitz to Kelly. Just as there is no obvious need to compare Brad Johnson to Jim Kelly.

That can !

Vick has put up excellent numbers these last two seasons. He averaged 8.1 yards per attempt in 2010, and 7.8 yards per attempt in 2011. Fitz's numbers aren't at that level, and aren't close. But can Vick maintain that level of production? Or will some combination of defenses and age catch up to him? He's going into his twelfth year (at least if you want to count years suspended as "years.") If I was looking for a quarterback for the 2012 season only, it would probably be Vick. But if we're talking about a QB for the next five years, it'd have to be Fitz.