Orton's Arm

Your post contains a great deal of speculation presented as fact. To address the confusion you are creating, I will separate what we know from what is merely conjectured. What we know: - The Bills and Winfield had been discussing an extension - The Bills broke off those talks a year before Winfield hit free agency - The Bills used the Winfield salary cap money on Lawyer Milloy The speculation you have presented as fact: - The Bills' offer to Winfield was comparable to the offers he would receive a year later from the Vikings and Jets - The Bills could only have retained Winfield by overpaying for his services - Locking up Winfield a year before he hit free agency, at a price similar to what he later received from the Vikings, was never an option. If you have links to support anything from the latter list, by all means do so.

The Bills made Winfield an offer? That's news to me. Do you have a link to support your claim? When TD signed Lawyer Milloy and Troy Vincent to their expensive contracts, he knew he was using up the cap room he would have needed to extend Winfield. The decision to add those two players was also a decision to let Winfield go first-contract-and-out. Edit: I just did a search, and found the following text from Bills Daily. ******* Thursday, September 4th, 2003 Winfield Talks Over: The Bills were able to sign Lawyer Milloy after talks with Antoine Winfield broke down over the weekend. The money that was available to use on a contract extension for Winfield went to Milloy. Winfield said the two sides talked last week as the Bills did offer him an extension but the two sides can't agree. They may talk some more during the season but nothing will get done before next offseason with Winfeild likely testing the free agent waters. ******** The Bills did not make Winfield a credible offer when he hit free agency, and elected to stop negotiating with him a year before he became a free agent. It's not clear how serious they were about keeping him before TD decided to use the salary cap space on Lawyer Milloy instead.

The bolded is pure conjecture. The Bills were unable to make Winfield a market-level offer, because TD had squandered his salary cap space on Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy.

Spiller has only two seasons under his belt. The book on him has not yet been written. On the one hand, he's been unable to get many reps, due to the Bills having one of the RBs and third down RBs in the league (Fred Jackson). On the other hand, Spiller looked good in limited playing time last season. It's too soon to say whether Spiller will play at or near the level one would expect from the ninth overall pick. The point has been made that even if Spiller lives up to his draft status, it did not necessarily make sense for the Bills to take a RB so early. Why take a RB so early when you already have Fred Jackson? And when there were players at least as good at Spiller available at other positions? It's quite possible for the Spiller pick to be a strategic error, even if he plays like you'd expect a RB picked in the top-15 to play. I Googled the following: Whitner, bust. That search returned 2.9 million results. Eight of the ten results on the first page either called him a bust, or at least addressed the question of whether he should be considered a bust. (The other two search results were irrelevant.) The first result was an article from Buffalo Sports Daily. It pointed out the question of whether Whitner is a bust could be argued either way. It contained the statement that, "Unfortunately, Whitner after five years hasn’t given the Bills, at least in terms of impact plays, anything another dime-per-dozen safety doesn’t produce on other teams." It concluded with, "Congratulations, Donte. You’re not a bust—- Instead, we’ll label you as serviceable." I also Googled: "Marshawn Lynch", bust. The first result was this article. It contains the following text: In hindsight, perhaps I would have been better served by stating that players like Whitner and Lynch were "major disappointments" rather than "busts." That would have prevented this thread from getting sidetracked into a pointless debate about what does or does not constitute a "bust." In any case, I hope that most people here can agree that the Whitner selection represented the destruction of the vast majority of the value of the 8th overall pick; just as the Lynch selection represented the destruction of the vast majority of the 12th overall pick.

The Bills never made Winfield a credible offer which might have tempted him to stay. That constitutes letting Winfield go--or at least as close to letting a very good player walk as you're likely to ever see in the NFL. Winfield's two realistic choices were the Jets and the Vikings. Those were the two teams which had shown themselves willing to pay the market price for his services. Of his two choices, he opted for the Vikings.

I think Gilmore is much less likely to be a bust than Floyd. Of course, if Gilmore goes first-contract-and-out, and if Floyd becomes a Pro Bowler, I'll be eating those words. As for TJ Graham: I don't know if he'll be better than Roscoe. But at least he'll be bigger and more physical than Roscoe.

McGee's injuries may be part of the plan. Envision this scenario: McGee begins the year as a starting cornerback. Meanwhile, some younger player--such as Gilmore or Aaron Williams--is put into the nickle or dime back role. The younger player gets some experience in that role, watches and learns, adapts to the new defense, etc. Then McGee goes down with an injury. The younger player is put into McGee's starting spot. If the younger player does well, the coaches leave him there even after McGee returns to full health. If it's clear the younger player needs more time before he's ready to be a starter, McGee is put back into the starting lineup when healthy. This will allow the Bills to evaluate one of their young CBs, and get him starting experience, without having to commit to him as a permanent starter. Of course, there's always a chance McGee won't get injured. But like you said, McGee, when healthy, is a better player than Florence. Whether McGee gets injured or stays healthy, the plan--if the above is indeed their plan--makes sense either way.

Several points: You are getting too caught up on the whole starter/non-starter thing. Steve Young was a backup for many years in San Francisco. That doesn't mean he was a failure. Melvin Fowler was a starter for a number of years with the Bills. That doesn't mean he was any good. You should pay more attention to the quality of a player's play, not just whether he was a starter. In limited playing time, Spiller played very well. In extensive playing time, Whitner's play was mediocre, and he had considerable problems covering TEs. The fact that Jabari Greer left in free agency was not due to bad coaching. Greer played well for the Bills; but the Bills' GM didn't offer him enough money to stay. Most here praised the quality of Greer's play while he was with the Bills, and rightly so. You may be correct to say that there are some NFL backup RBs who could not take the pounding of being a starter. But on what basis do you imply that a typical NFL backup RB would be unable to have a 1000 yard season due to injuries? And even if you were right about that--you're not, but even if you were--how does that make Antowain Smith significantly more valuable than, say, a collection of backup RBs--guys who as a committee could achieve about the same yards per carry that Smith would have achieved? You keep bringing up how well San Francisco's defense did with Whitner on board, and how well the Patriots team did while Antowain Smith was there. And yet you don't mention the Bills' struggles on offense back when we had Antowain Smith, or the Bills' struggles on defense back when Whitner was our starting SS. This is a double standard. "you also proclaimed a 2x time pro bowler in Marshawn Lynch a bust." Any time you take a player 12th overall, and turn him into a fourth and sixth rounder just a few years into his career, the pick can't be considered anything other than a failure.

Very solid post. Just to add to what you've written: there's a significant chance Levy could have asserted his authority as GM for the purpose of fixing the problems you've described. Firing/replacing most of the Bills' scouting staff. Replacing John Guy. Probably replacing Modrak. He didn't do those things, perhaps for several reasons: 1) He might not have realized the extent to which he was surrounded by incompetents. 2) He might not have been able to identify competent replacements. (The fact he hired Jauron as head coach suggests that identifying competent people might not have been his strong point.) 3) The possibility that, even if he'd identified someone good, he might not have been able to tempt that person to come over to the Bills. When Marv quit, he said something to the effect that he thought the GM would have had more of a role in player selection decisions. To me, this suggests Marv passively accepted the role (or non-role) others in the organization wanted to give the GM with respect to player selection. Marv did not actively assert his authority to select players. (Not that there's any guarantee the player selections would have been any better, had Marv been calling the shots.) To make a long story short: the Bills organization of 2006 was in desperate need of leadership. Leadership which Marv failed to provide. In contrast, Nix seems like he has a specific plan for the franchise. He is surrounding himself with the front office personnel, coaches, and players necessary to make the plan work. Should the organization start to drift away from that plan, Nix will assert his authority to get things back on track.

There are several points I'd like to address: You and I are using different definitions for the word "bust." That's fine--as long as we don't waste everyone else's time with a pointless, endless, and ultimately unwinnable argument about whose definition is correct. Jabari Greer didn't suddenly blossom into a solid contributor with the Saints. He was also a solid contributor and starter for the Bills. Which is why the Bills should have re-signed him. Instead, they let him leave in free agency in the prime of his career. And used a top-12 pick on his replacement. If you take a standard-issue NFL backup RB, and give him enough carries, he'll become a 1000 yard rusher. A few 1000 yard seasons should not be seen as an indication that a RB is good enough to justify even a third round pick, let alone a first round pick. A better measurement is yards per carry. However--unless a RB's name is Barry Sanders--yards per carry is dictated more by the quality of the OL's run blocking than by the RB himself. So you compare a RB's yards per carry against that of his backups, on the theory they both received the same run blocking. Antowain Smith's yards per carry wasn't that much different than his backups'. That's one of the reasons why Antowain Smith wasn't a particularly sought-after free agent after he and the Bills parted ways. The fact that Donte Whitner was a starter for a number of years doesn't mean he was a good player. It just means the Bills felt he was a better player than George Wilson. (Though there were times when Wilson took Whitner's starting spot.) The correct measurement of Whitner's worth is free agency; because that represents the collective judgement of NFL GMs. The fact he had all those starts gave them a large body of work at which to look. They determined his worth was a quality backup/lower tier starter. Fred Jackson is one of the best RBs in the league. There is no shame in Spiller being stuck behind him on the depth chart. Spiller looked good in limited playing time last season, and may be given more opportunities this season. At very least, he appears to be a significantly more athletic and talented RB than Antowain Smith had been. The Bills should not have been desperate for a safety in 2006, because 2006 was a rebuilding year! You don't reach for a safety at 8th overall when there were much better football players available at more valuable positions. Even if the Bills had gone 0-16 in 2006 due to the lack of a SS, no one would have gotten fired, because it was the honeymoon period. And the Bills would have had the first overall pick of the 2007 draft. The Whitner selection represented short term, "sacrifice tomorrow for today" thinking at a time when such thinking was completely unnecessary.

One of the reasons last year's Bills team didn't attempt many deep passes is because Fitz's long ball is . . . less than stellar. In fact it's hit or miss, with the emphasis here being on the miss. That's one of the things I hope gets fixed as Fitz works on his mechanics. That said, I'll grant that Kelly had a stronger supporting cast than Fitz, thereby increasing his yards per attempt. On the other hand, the rules were less pass-friendly back in Kelly's day; a fact which would tend to decrease Kelly's yards per attempt. This past draft improved the starters and depth on the OL, and added a deep threat to the Bills' offense. Fitz should have ample opportunity to complete his share of deep passes--assuming he's up to the task.

To further address the Donte Whitner issue: it's true the Bills made him a solid offer, which Whitner rejected. But that was before the draft, and before they'd taken Searcy. After that draft, the Bills' offer was off the table, which meant Whitner had to go with the best offer he could find from some other team instead. The highest bidder for Whitner's services offered him the kind of deal you'd expect a quality backup/lower tier starter to receive. In the collective judgment of NFL GMs, Whitner was not worth more than that. Had he been, someone would have offered him more. Fans tend to over-value dramatic things like big hits, and undervalue more subtle things like good coverage. Whitner is good at delivering dramatic hits, as you've pointed out. He's generally good in run support. But his ability to cover TEs has been questionable at best, which is why he wasn't offered big money on the free agent market. Had Whitner been a third or fourth round pick, it would have been perfectly acceptable for him to have turned into a quality backup/lower tier starter. But for the eighth overall pick to turn into that represents the destruction of the vast majority of the value that pick represented. Whitner still had some value, I'll grant, and the Bills might have been able to trade him away for a fourth round pick a few years into his career. As a player, Whitner is not a failure, and it's not his personal fault he was drafted several rounds before he should have been. I'm using the word "bust" to refer to the use of a top-10 or top-15 pick on a player who shouldn't have been drafted until the third or fourth round. The reason for my word usage is that if you take a guy 12th overall, such as Lynch, or a guy 8th overall, such as Whitner, and if you get a player who's worth no more than a third or fourth rounder, you've lost the vast majority of the value of the pick. Dictionary.com defines a bust as "a failure." If you spent $100 on something, and received an item worth $15, you'd probably consider that transaction a failure. As a player Whitner is not a failure. But as the 8th overall pick, he was.

I haven't followed Toshiero's position on Drew Brees, and as such I can't address the inconsistency in his view you believe you've seen. But I would like to address the point he made about Fitz. 1) Nine out of the last ten Super Bowls have been won by teams with franchise QBs. A franchise QB elevates your team to a higher level. Without that, odds are strongly against you coming away with a Super Bowl ring. 2) The proper measure of a QB's success is not yards over the course of a season (which can be inflated by a lot of passing attempts) or completion percentage (which can be inflated by Trent Edwards-type tactics). The correct measure is yards per passing attempt. Jim Kelly averaged 7.4 yards per passing attempt over the course of his career. Trent Edwards averaged 6.5 yards per attempt. Fitzpatrick averaged 6.8 yards per attempt in 2010, and 6.7 yards per attempt in 2011. In other words, he was a step above Edwards, but two steps below Kelly. 3) With all the other pieces Nix has assembled this off season, a franchise QB might be enough to make this team into a legitimate Super Bowl contender. 4) Fitz is good or very good at most aspects of the game. His Achilles Heel is his inability to throw the ball with consistent accuracy. If he solves that problem (for example by fixing his mechanics) he could become very good. He has not been very good up to this point. 5) Even when Fitz was putting up good numbers (early in the season) it was despite the fact he was (characteristically) throwing a number of inaccurate passes. He went up against some very poor pass defenses early in the year. That doesn't mean he can't learn to play at or a near a franchise level--just that he has not done so thus far. 6) If the coaches fix Fitz's mechanics, there's a chance of him becoming significantly more accurate. I don't claim to know whether it's a 1% chance or a 50% chance. But it's the only real chance the Bills have of becoming a legitimate Super Bowl contender--at least for the near future.

First, I'd like to thank everyone in this thread who made an effort to post something intelligent/constructive. (Especially Bill from NYC.) I'd also like to address some of the points which have been raised. Claim: players like Whitner, Maybin, Antowain Smith, etc. were not busts. Response: if you pick a SS 8th overall, the expectation should be that he'll be a better football player than George Wilson. If you want to say that Whitner contributed more to the team than, for example, John McCargo, then fine. He did. But if the Bills had drafted no one at eighth overall in 2006, and had used George Wilson as their starting SS, they would have lost very little except for depth at SS. Aaron Maybin contributed nothing to the Bills. For the Jets, he's a blitzing SS who can't cover. While he'll get the occasional sack, he is clearly not what one would expect from a first or second round pick. Antowain Smith and the Bills parted ways after his fourth year in the league. He was not a particularly sought-after free agent. The Patriots picked him up, mostly because they had few other options at RB. He was okay for them, but nothing more than okay. The Patriots released him after three years. Marshawn Lynch was traded away for a fourth and sixth rounder after a few years in the league. That should have been the time when his market value was at its peak: he'd been in the league long enough to show what he could do, but not so long that there was much mileage on him. The 12th overall pick is worth 1200 points; whereas a third round pick (allegedly what the Saints were offering for Lynch) is typically worth about 200 points or less. The selection of Lynch resulted in the destruction of 5/6 of the value of that 12th overall pick. For some, 6/6 of that value would have had to have been destroyed for him to fall into the bust category. I acknowledge that some are using the word "bust" in a narrower sense than me, and I don't see much to be gained by arguing about the definition of that word. Claim: players like Winfield, Burris, etc. were success stories because they were good football players. It's not their fault they went first-contract-and-out. Response: I never said that first-contract-and-out was the players' fault. (It wasn't.) But if you use a first round pick on a player at any position, only to let him go first-contract-and-out, it's not a success story. A player like Antoine Winfield could have been a great success story for the Bills, had he been retained for the entirety of his career. Instead, he's a great success story for the Minnesota Vikings. They received most of his career, and didn't have to use any draft picks at all. Claim: it's a viable strategy to use first round picks on CBs, only to let them go first-contract-and-out. This is because one can often find good CBs in the first round, and because free agent CBs are overpriced. Response: A Super Bowl winning team needs a good core of players. Guys who play at or near an elite level, and who will remain with your team for a long period of time. While some of this core can come from free agency, and some from rounds 2 - 7, the primary source of core players will typically be the first round. A team which uses many of its first round picks on short duration positions (RBs and first-contract-and-out DBs) will, ceteris paribus, have a weaker core than a team which uses all its first round picks on its effort to build its core. If a team is a player or two away from being a legitimate Super Bowl contender, it might be justified in using first round picks on short duration positions. If the Patriots, for example, felt that a first-contract-and-out CB might give them that last piece they need to get Brady another Super Bowl ring, a first-contract-and-out CB might be logical for them. It is illogical for a rebuilding team to neglect its core in order to acquire short-career RBs or first-contract-and-out DBs.

Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs, and another 25% on DBs. The Bills' decision to use fully 50% of their first picks of the draft on RBs and DBs is one of the reasons why this team has traditionally had a losing record. (Note that the concept of a first pick of the draft is not interchangeable with a first round pick. Jim Kelly, for example, was a first round pick. But he wasn't the Bills' first pick of the draft, because the Bills chose a TE two picks earlier.) During the post-Polian/pre-Nix era, the Bills have used first picks of the draft on the following DBs: Thomas Smith. Result: seven years of decent play Jeff Burris. Result: left the team after four years. Had a ten year career. Antoine Winfield. Result: left the team after five years. Had a thirteen year career. Nate Clements. Result: left the team after six years. Has had an eleven year career thus far. Donte Whitner. Result: bust Leodis McKelvin. Result: bust There are no success stories on the above list. Some of the DBs left early because they were busts, and some left early because the team decided to let them go first-contract-and-out. Either way, first round DBs didn't stay long. The Bills responded by using early picks on the replacements for those DBs. In the post-Polian/pre-Nix era, the Bills have used first picks of the draft on the following RBs: Antowain Smith. Result: bust Willis McGahee. Result: disappointment Marshawn Lynch. Result: bust The above list would be longer if it included Travis Henry (second round) and Spiller (a Nix pick). Also, Butler only used one first or second round pick on a RB, which means he used early picks on RBs at a much lower rate than TD or Marv. (Which is one of the things Butler did right.) Needless to say, there are no success stories on the above list. I'm not suggesting that it's always a mistake for a team to use a first round pick on a RB or DB. If Antoine Winfield, for example, had been retained for the entirety of his career, he would have represented an excellent use of the Bills' first round pick. The reason Antoine Winfield didn't become a success story for the Bills was because of their strategy of allowing their best DBs to go first-contract-and-out. During the post-Polian era, the Bills have had severe problems at QB and on the offensive line. They used three first round picks on the QB position: Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, and JP Losman. One of those was a trade for another team's aging backup, and did not represent a real effort to find a long-term solution to the problem at QB. That means just two first round picks were used on attempts to find a long-term answer at quarterback, as opposed to nine on DBs + RBs. Similarly, only two first round picks were used on OTs during the post-Polian era, despite the fact the Bills' offensive line has typically been disappointing at best during that time. Bill from NYC's opposition to using early picks on RBs or DBs is a rational response to the last 20 years of Bills' history. The number of early picks used on those positions has been excessive, and not once during the post-Polian/pre-Nix era has any first round DB or RB resulted in a success story. The team has had very severe problems elsewhere--especially at QB and on the OL--because too many picks were squandered on RBs and DBs. But just because Nix has used first round picks on a RB and a DB, does not necessarily mean he's falling into the same trap as his predecessors. One of the reasons the post-Polian first round RBs were busts was because none of them were anything special at catching passes out of the backfield. Spiller might be. He also seems like a faster, more elusive runner than the other post-Polian first round RBs. The problem with post-Polian DBs has been that even when a first round pick was successful (a good player) it was still a failure (first-contract-and-out). Thus far, Nix has been very good at keeping the players worth keeping. This means that if Gilmore plays well, there's a chance he'll be retained for most or all his career. If Spiller and Gilmore turn into success stories, they will do two things. 1) Strengthen the team at RB and DB, respectively. 2) Discourage the team from using first round picks on RBs and DBs, thereby freeing those picks up for use elsewhere.

I'll begin by discussing the pattern you've described. The Bucs team which drafted Steve Young exemplified a badly run franchise. They threw their QB into the fire, with no actual OL to protect him. Instead of drafting players to improve the OL, they used their early picks on defensive players--especially DBs--and on a RB who never actually signed with the team. I even think some of those early round DBs went first-contract-and-out! The Bucs gave up on Young after just two years, and after zero effort to surround him with decent pass protection or a good supporting cast. Cutler had good success with the Broncos, which is why they were able to trade him away for two first round picks plus Kyle Orton. That's two more first round picks, and one more Kyle Orton, than the Titans received for Young. Warner achieved great success with the Rams, leading the team to two Super Bowl appearances, including one win. His play subsequently declined due to injury, and he was let go because the team thought he'd never return to anywhere close to his pre-injury form. Obviously they were wrong. That leaves Vick, who has in fact played at a much higher level these last two years than he did with the Falcons. Vick demonstrates that the kind of improvement you've described can happen, even if such stories aren't necessarily all that common. Maybe Vince Young is another Michael Vick story: he isn't another Kurt Warner, Jay Cutler, or Steve Young story. On the other hand, the Bills seem to have this year's two best UDFA QBs. Admittedly, the success rate for UDFAs is very low. On the other hand, the rate of Michael Vick stories is probably at least equally low. And while any given UDFA QB is going to be a long shot, Tanney and Corp are far more promising long shots than most!

The harm in this is that the Bills are squandering a roster spot on a first round QB bust. That same roster spot could be used on a young guy with promise, like Tanney or Corp. Even if it's only a 1% chance of Tanney or Corp becoming the answer, that's still 1% more than is the case with Vince Young. I like 99% of what Nix has done this off season. I don't like this.

I strongly disagree with your opinion about Schaub. The numbers argue Schaub is a top-5 QB. Over the course of his career, he's averaged 7.9 yards per pass attempt; which is a better career average than either Peyton Manning (7.6) or Tom Brady (7.5). By way of contrast, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt; and these last two seasons Fitz has averaged 6.8 and 6.7 yards per attempt. Fitz has an interception percentage of 3.7%, as compared to 2.5% for Schaub. Fitz and Schaub aren't even part of the same conversation. Nor will they be, until or unless Fitz greatly improves the quality of his play.

Let's be realistic here: we know what we have/don't have in Tyler Thigpen. What we don't have is a good, long-term solution at backup QB. It's not a question of if Thigpen needs to be replaced. It's a question of when. In the form of Tanney, the Bills have a guy who's put up very good college stats, albeit at a DIII school. Tanney averaged over 10 yards per pass attempt, which is insane. He played in 47 games, 32 of which resulted in over 300 passing yards. He threw for only 30 INTs in 1756 pass attempts, for an INT percentage of 1.7%. I'm not a big fan of using completion percentage as a measurement of QB success, because that measure is biased in favor of West Coast QBs. But for what it's worth, his completion percentage was over 68%. Tanney is going to come to training camp new to the NFL, without knowing Gailey's offense, without having had the chance to adjust to the speed of the NFL game, and without having developed chemistry with the Bills' WR corps. Thigpen will have none of these disadvantages. Suppose the Bills decide to give the benefit of the doubt to Tanney, and keep him on the roster over Thigpen. And let's suppose that, a year from now, they realize that even with the time to learn Gailey's offense and adjust to the NFL, Tanney does not look very good. At that point, they'd realize they need an upgrade at backup QB. Which is basically where they are today.

I agree with what you're saying about the rainbows. Drew Bledsoe would also throw rainbows on deep patterns, and threw them in such a way as to make the ball drop into the receiver's hands. Bledsoe had a cannon of an arm. He deliberately threw the occasional rainbow anyway, because that's exactly the right throw for certain circumstances, exactly as you've implied. I don't know whether Tanney will make the final roster. But I think he should make the final roster, unless the coaches are reasonably certain that Tyler Thigpen is the significantly better player. Given what we saw from Thigpen at the end of last season, and given what Tanney has shown us thus far, I would find it impossible to make the case that Thigpen is conclusively better. That being the case, why not give a chance to the guy with upside? The risk is that Tanney would do worse in a backup role than Thigpen would have done. But let's be realistic here: how much worse than Thigpen could Tanney possibly be? I'd also like to hear input from those who may have watched his play at Monmouth. Did it seem like his supporting cast generally dominated defenses, or were they relatively evenly matched? I love the fact that Tanney has thrown for more yards than any other QB in Division III history. I'd like to know how much of that was him, and how much of that was his supporting cast.

I think that you and I are on the same page. As far as I'm concerned, even early in the season when his numbers were good, Fitz made bad throws a franchise QB would have avoided. Even in the New England game, the Bills barely won, despite the fact Tom Brady uncharacteristically threw four interceptions, and despite the fact that at the time New England had one of the worst pass defenses of the past decade. Most of the time, Tom Brady will not throw an entire season's worth of interceptions in a single game, which means that most of the time, a Tom Brady team will roll right over a Fitzpatrick team. Especially if the two teams' defenses are evenly matched. I'm not saying that Fitz's accuracy and mechanics can't improve. But as others have pointed out, the odds of that actually happening at this late a stage in his career are slim. This means that while the Bills can do reasonably well in the regular season with Fitz at QB, they cannot win the Super Bowl until a franchise QB is obtained. Not to sound like I'm putting all my eggs into the basket of an UDFA who's never played a down of football in the NFL, but I'm optimistic about the Alex Tanney signing.

You heard the knock on him is accuracy? I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that accuracy does not seem to be a significant issue with this particular quarterback. While he had abundant success at his Division III school, I'm curious about whether that success came from throwing to his primary receiver, or whether he was able to see the field quickly and throw to his second or third targets.

This. As far as I'm concerned, Alex Tanney is the perfect UDFA signing! Sure he's a risk. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have been available as a UDFA. All UDFAs are going to have serious question marks associated with them. You look for UDFAs with a lot of upside to offset that risk. After watching that video, I can definitely see the upside! Also, his raw throwing talent did translate into production, albeit against lesser competition. I'd like to see how he does when both his supporting cast and his opposition are much better than had been the case at his DIII school. I also feel that if, after training camp, the Bills are on the fence about this guy, they should err on the side of giving him a roster spot. Even if Tanney doesn't work out, odds are he won't be that much worse than Tyler Thigpen. On the other hand, Tanney had a lot more potential upside than Thigpen! Edit: according to the description of the video, "Alex is now the All Time - ALL Division Leader in TD's Thrown (157) and the DIII All Time Leader in passing yards 14,249 yards." If the Jaguars could use a third round pick on a punter, how come no one felt it necessary to use even a seventh round pick on this guy? I'm glad the situation seems to have worked out for the Bills' benefit, but a bit puzzled by how someone like this goes undrafted in the first place.

Nine out of the last ten Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise QBs. If you don't have a franchise QB--and the Bills don't--the odds are heavily stacked against you. That said, the Ravens did show that a team without a franchise QB can win the Super Bowl after all. Each of their four defensive linemen legitimately required a double team. Even the worst of their starting linebackers played at or near a Pro Bowl level, and the best of the bunch, Ray Lewis, will find his way into the Hall of Fame. Their secondary consisted of a pair of shutdown corners, along with players like Ed Reed at safety. This talent was good enough to give them one of the three best defenses in NFL history. But that defense alone was not enough for them to win the Super Bowl. On offense they had a great OL, anchored by Hall of Fame-level LT in the form of Jon Ogden. They had a talented running back in the form of Jamal Lewis--a player who would later have a 2000 yard rushing season, IIRC. They had an aging, but still very good, Hall of Fame TE in Shannon Sharpe. Only at QB and WR did their offense have below-average talent. The Ravens also had a good special teams unit. IIRC, that special teams unit made the difference in their playoff game against the Titans. Finally, the Ravens got lucky in terms of who they faced in the postseason. Other than in the first half of the Raiders game, none of the Ravens' postseason opponents had a franchise QB. Back in 2000, the Giants had Kerry Collins at quarterback. Because of Kerry Collins and other weaknesses, the Giants of 2000 were a much weaker Super Bowl opponent than they would later become with Eli Manning under center. Teams which win the Super Bowl are generally much better than the Giants of 2000 had been. As an example, the Giants team which just won the Super Bowl has a franchise QB (Eli Manning) and a relatively complete team to go with him. While I love the way the Bills' defense has been improved, the goal of building one of the three or four best defenses in NFL history is still a long way away. Even if that goal is achieved, the Bills would still have to hope for a Ravens-like OL. They'd also have to hope that their postseason opponents are no better than the teams the Ravens faced in the 2000/2001 postseason, and are like the Kerry Collins Giants, not the Eli Manning Giants. Rather than hope for all that, I'd just as soon find a franchise QB if at all possible.

I don't see much long-term potential in most of the players you mentioned. The ones which seem most intriguing are Jake Locker, Christian Ponder, and perhaps Brock Osweiler. Even with those three guys, I don't see any guarantees of getting a top-5 or even a top-10 QB. There are no Andrew Lucks in that group, though I am a fan of Ponder. I agree that the Bills will need significantly upgraded QB play before they can win the Super Bowl, and that this significantly upgraded play is unlikely to come from Fitz. But while the Bills are very unlikely to win the Super Bowl with Fitz under center, Nix has assembled enough talent to allow them to go 11-5 and get eliminated in the divisional round. The Jets managed that with Sanchez under center, and Fitz is better than Sanchez. (Sanchez's yards per attempt is about the same as Trent Edwards', despite the fact that Sanchez is surrounded with a much better supporting cast than the one Edwards had.) If Nix produces an 8-8 season this year, followed by 9-7 or 10-6 next year, it should be good enough to let him keep his job. That will give him time to draft a QB prospect to groom behind Fitz. Whether there will be an available first round prospect worth taking, and whether Nix will decide to pull the trigger, are of course unknown factors.