Orton's Arm

I would argue that this team's biggest need is for difference makers. I'd break these players down into three categories. 1. Players who can be productive despite being double teamed. Bruce Smith could get sacks despite double teams. Jerry Rice could catch passes despite double teams. 2. Players who can single-handedly take care of category 1 difference makers. Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. Deion Sanders could single cover Rice, and keep him under control. 3. Players who play at the level as the first two types, but at positions which don't lend themselves to being category 1 or 2 difference makers. Barry Sanders and Joe Montana fall into this category. Other than at defensive line, how many difference makers can you think of on this team? Only one player comes to my mind: Fred Jackson. It's very difficult to acquire more than one difference maker a year. So it's not like the goal of acquiring this kind of player can be put off for now with a reasonable expectation that lost ground can be made up for later. If the team is to become a legitimate threat to win the Super Bowl within the next three to four years, the time to start adding difference makers is now. Adding a difference maker at LT would be an excellent start! As for depth, I have not suggested the Bills trade away their picks in rounds 4 - 7. Even if trading away some of those picks did become necessary to secure Kalil, it would be worth it. The remainder of those picks can be used to increase depth. Also, the Bills can obtain depth via UDFAs as well as free agents. Adding large numbers of backup-quality players to a roster is relatively easy, as Parcells showed by replacing most of the Dolphins' roster during his first year as GM. In addition, if you don't draft a player at a specific position, it becomes easier to attract the best available UDFAs at that position to sign with you. They know they'll be more likely to win a roster spot if they don't have to compete against draft picks to get it. The Bills have essentially two options. 1) Acquire a difference maker this year, along with an increase in depth. The plan would be to acquire another difference maker and more depth next year. 2) Acquire all the depth they'll need this year, but with no difference-makers. Of the two plans, I feel the first will yield significantly better long term results.

If you go back and reread my post, you'll see that I didn't advocate reaching for a player, ever. Obviously, players like Whitner and McCargo were not even remotely close to being the best player available when they were picked! In my view, both of the following should be true of your first round pick: 1) It should be used on someone who's the best player available, or at least very close 2) It should be used on a player at a position of need. No drafting a RB when you're already set at the position! In order to arrange for both of those things to be true, it may sometimes be necessary to trade up or down. If the Bills were to trade up for Kalil, as an example, then when they chose him, the best player available (him) would correspond with a position of need (LT).

I'd argue there are two scenarios in which it makes sense to seek a trade: 1) A scenario in which the best player available is significantly better than the best player available at a position of need. 2) A scenario in which you've targeted a special player, such as a franchise QB, and are willing to pay a steep price to get him. The reason it makes sense to trade in scenario 1) is because you cannot get full value out of your own pick by staying put. You need to move up or down, to a draft position where the best player available corresponds with one of your team's needs. (Assuming, of course, that another team is willing to make a reasonably fair trade with you.)

I like your way of thinking. I completely agree that, if it's a choice between acquiring picks in next year's draft and trading up in this year's draft, you do the former every time. As you pointed out, picks in next year's draft would better position the Bills to potentially trade up for a QB. By the same token, I really don't like the idea of trading away picks in next year's draft. In order, my preferred options would be as follows: 1) Trade out of the #10 slot for a first rounder next year and a late first round pick this year. 2) Trade up for Kalil--but only with picks from this year's draft. 3) Stay put at #10 and take a WR or CB 4) Trade down for more picks this year If there's an opportunity in next year's draft to take a franchise QB, I'd be more than happy to pay a king's ransom to obtain that QB. To illustrate why, consider the Colts. In 1998 they drafted Peyton Manning. Suppose, hypothetically speaking, that it had been necessary to trade away the next three drafts for that one player. Would that price have been worth it? Those three years worth of drafts got them Edgerin James, Reggie Wayne, and Rob Morris. If I needed a quarterback, would I trade away those three players to get a Peyton Manning in exchange? Absolutely, and without hesitation! You do a trade like that ten times out of ten! Similarly, the Packers' drafts in the three years after they acquired Aaron Rodgers were worth a lot less than Rodgers himself. If the Bills obtain Kalil and a LB this year, and a franchise QB next year, they will become a threat to win the Super Bowl! The final two pieces would be a shutdown CB and a Pro Bowl WR. But even absent those two pieces, the Bills would still have a real shot--as long as they obtained that franchise QB and Kalil.

The Bills have several options at 10th overall: QB. The Bills need a franchise QB more than anything. But my impression is that after the first two QBs are off the board, there won't be anyone left worthy of 10th overall. LT. Kalil will be off the board before 10th overall, and the second-best LT probably isn't worth 10th overall. Interior OL. 10th overall is too early for an interior offensive lineman. Even highly rated players like Mangold were taken in the lower part of the first round. (One pick after the Bills took McCargo.) RT. 10th overall is also a little early for RT, and besides, the Bills have Hairston WR. A possibility at 10th overall. DL. No longer a position of need LB. 10th overall is too early for a LB unless he's an elite pass rusher. Wannestedt's defense doesn't call for LBs to blitz very often, and it's not like any LB is going to be able to cover Gronkowski one-on-one. If a LB isn't blitzing, and isn't covering TEs one-on-one, then how is he supposed to contribute enough to pass defense to justify 10th overall? Safety. 10th overall is early for a safety. In any case, the Bills have good safeties already in the form of Wilson and Byrd CB. A possibility at 10th overall. A shutdown CB could cover the other team's best WR one-on-one. The longer the other team's players stay covered, the more effective the Bills' pass rush will become. But if the Bills take a CB here, and if he lives up to expectations, they have to keep him in Buffalo his whole career. None of this first-contract-and-out garbage! To make a long story short, the Bills have four strong possibilities for their draft choice: 1) Stay put and take a CB 2) Stay put and take a WR 3) Trade up for Kalil 4) Trade down Depending on their evaluations of individual players, 3) might well be their best option. You could do a lot worse than coming away with a close-to-elite player at a premium position like LT! A player like Kalil could be a building block for many years to come. The downside is that acquiring him would involve trading away the second or third round picks; and possibly both. I know there are those who will say the Bills need to add large numbers of decent players more than they need to add one elite player. I disagree. Offense: QB. Fitz is fine for now, though a franchise QB should be added as soon as possible OL. Other than LT, the OL is in pretty good shape. WR. The Bills have an infinite number of WRs already. Adding an elite player could help. But adding numbers for the sake of it is not necessary. TE. Chandler RB. Nothing needed here. Defense: DL: Fine. Ridiculously so, in fact. LB: They may want to add a player here. S: No need here. CB: A #1 CB is needed. If the Bills added a good-to-elite LT, a good-to-elite CB, and a competent LB, they'd have eliminated their major holes. With Wannestedt's defense you typically would take your LBs later in the draft. (They're normally college safeties who get turned into fast NFL LBs.) The Bills will have plenty of later round picks with which to take the kind of LBs Wannestedt likes. Trading up for Kalil would solve the LT problem in a big way! That leaves just a #1 CB, which I admit you're probably not going to get later in the draft. They could probably take a CB later in the draft as a stopgap measure, knowing they'll have to address the position again in a year or two. My concern is that if they attempt to get both a shutdown CB and a franchise LT in this draft, they may end up with decent-but-not great players at both positions. Better to add one elite player a year for the next three years. This year's elite player would be a LT. The next two years' elite players would be a QB and a CB; with a strong preference for a QB over any other position!

Every thread should have its own theme song. is this thread's theme song!

I'm not a big fan of picking a guard 10th overall. Even a very highly rated interior OL will normally be there for you in the lower part of the first round. (As Mangold was a few years back. Of course, the Bills chose McCargo instead . . . .) Aside from which, the Bills are already pretty strong in the interior of the OL. They have Levitre, Wood, and Urbik. You pointed out that Levitre is coming up to the end of his contract. But if the plan is to let him go first-contract-and-out, and to use the 10th overall pick to draft his replacement, then they may as well fire everyone who agreed with that decision! Letting your best draft choices go first-contract-and-out is exactly the kind of boneheaded mistake which has been plaguing this organization since the late '90s! The Bills should use the 10th overall player on a guy who will change the complexion of the team. Maybe that's a WR who can be productive despite being double-covered. Maybe that's a CB who can cover the other team's best WR one-on-one. Maybe that's a LT, assuming there's one available worthy of 10th overall. In a perfect world, the Bills would be able to trade the pick for choices in the 2013 draft; and would be able to use those choices on a franchise QB. Barring that, the Bills may be able to trade down out of the 10th overall pick, or perhaps they can trade up for the best LT in the draft. (I forget his name.) And yes, I realize Buddy doesn't like trading. But this might be as good a year as any for him to make an exception, especially if the right deal is available.

If there were only two teams involved, then yes. But with three teams, you could easily run into a situation in which A beat B, B beat C, C beat A. There are three teams with a 6-10 record (Bills, Panthers, and Dolphins), which means they can't use the same tiebreakers they'd use if it was just two teams going head-to-head.

I don't like the idea of using a top-10 pick on a LB, especially not with this defense. You don't want your MLB covering anyone important--at least not one-on-one--and this defense doesn't typically ask your LBs to do much blitzing. That means your LBs are a lot more useful in run defense than in pass defense. For run defense, you can get a Zach Thomas-type player later in the draft. You don't need to use your top-10 pick on something like that. I agree with Chandler#81 on two things, and disagree on one thing. 1) I agree that the Bills should trade away that pick if they can, ideally for something other than picks in this year's draft. 2) I also agree that the pick should somehow be turned into a QB. I disagree with the specific idea of Brees. Yes, he still has some very good years left in him. But he's closer to the end of his career than to the beginning. The Bills need a franchise QB who will give them a very long window of opportunity. That way if it takes them a while to get all the other pieces in place--as it did with the Colts and Manning--they will still have the opportunity to win a Super Bowl.

You've asked worthwhile questions. I don't know enough about college football in general, or Barro in particular, to have a feel for whether he could cover the AFC East's TEs. That being said, my instinct is to go with Floyd over Barro for several reasons. 1) I don't like taking a safety early unless he's a very special player. 2) The Bills have reasonably good safeties already in the form of Byrd and Wilson. It's going to be tough for someone to be enough better than that to justify tenth overall. 3) I like the idea of the offense having a WR who can still make plays despite being double-covered. The Cowboys of the '90s had Irvin, the 49ers had Rice, the Bills had Reed . . . we could use a guy like that. But . . . if Barro could cover Gronkowski one-on-one, and keep him under control, then I could be tempted to change my opinion. Put another way, I'd take Barro if and only if he had a significantly higher draft grade than any other player available at the Bills' pick. Edit: there are some positions the Bills should not consider drafting at 10th overall. These include RB (for glaringly obvious reasons), interior OL, LB, and probably RT. (I'm not a big fan of using top-10 picks on RTs, and I like Hairston there anyway.) If Barro is significantly better than any other player available at a non-crossed-off position, then and only then do you take him.

Adding a franchise QB to your offense dramatically changes its complexion. The presence of a franchise QB is the most important reason why the Saints, Giants, and Steelers offenses are so effective. The lack of good QBs is why the Dolphins and Browns have had disappointing offenses. However . . . once you have your franchise QB, there are only two things defenses can do to stop him. 1) Take away his time to throw. 2) Take away any targets to throw to. Getting a franchise LT makes it a lot tougher for defenses to accomplish the first of those two things. Getting a big play WR or TE makes it much harder for them to do the second. Unfortunately, the Bills don't have a franchise QB, and won't have the opportunity to add one this draft. The plan should be to add one as soon as possible--ideally as quickly as next year--and in the meantime to prepare for his coming. That means the first round pick should probably come down to three choices. 1) LT 2) WR 3) CB. Yes, I know this third one doesn't really prepare for a QB's coming, but it would really help the defense. I don't like the idea of the Bills using their first round pick on a LT, unless they trade up for Kalil. I don't think the second-best LT in the draft is worthy of going tenth overall. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, reaching for need gets you Maybin. I'd be fine with a WR like Floyd, especially if the Bills felt he had the highest grade of available players when they picked. If they went WR in the first, they could go LT or CB in the second. I'm not a fan of taking a LB at 10th overall for a number of reasons. They're not really used as pass rushers in Wannestadt's defense, which means their only real value on passing plays would be in pass coverage. I keep hearing how a LB could be used to cover TEs. But if a SS like Donte Whitner couldn't cover TEs--and he couldn't--then how is a LB supposed to cover them? If Gronkowski goes up against any LB it's a serious mismatch, and Brady should throw to him. No LB should ever be matched up one-on-one against him! TEs should be covered by safeties; and specifically by safeties with better coverage skills than Whitner.

Bryce Paup was a perfect fit for the 3-4 defense Wade Phillips ran. In a 3-4, you're typically rushing your three down linemen, plus one extra guy. That one extra guy was often Paup. The advantage to this is that, before the snap, offenses wouldn't know who that extra guy would be. So you could create unpredictability without having to rush more than four guys. With Wannestadt's 4-3, he's rushing four guys already in the form of his down linemen. He's not a big fan of blitzing. Including Merriman as a LB would signal to the offense that a blitz was coming. Then, pre-snap, the QB could figure out how to exploit whatever coverage vulnerabilities that blitz would create. I'm not saying that putting Merriman in as a pass rushing LB would never be a good idea; because there probably will be times when that's exactly the right thing to do. (Assuming he recovers and stays recovered, of course!) But Merriman cannot have a Paup-like impact in this defense, at least not at LB. If the goal is to get him a lot of sacks, he needs to play on the DL.

Just to add to my earlier post, I'd like to discuss the longevity of difference-makers. How many starters do we have from Marv's era as GM? I'm aware of only one: Kyle Williams. I'm aware of no current starters from the TD era; but two or three years ago we had Lee Evans, Terrance McGee, Aaron Schobel, and Chris Kelsay as starters. Of the five above-mentioned long-lasting players, four were difference-makers or close to difference-makers. The lesser players Marv and TD drafted didn't last long at all, and soon needed to be replaced. Finding a difference-maker at a position typically means you won't have to worry about it again for a very long time. The more positions you can do that with, the less dependent you'll be on obtaining large numbers of new players on an annual basis. On the other hand, if you bring in a player to add to your numbers, odds are you'll see a need to replace him in a few years with another numbers player. It's a hamster wheel, and difference makers are an escape from that hamster wheel.

All else being equal, I strongly prefer taking a player expected to have a longer career over one associated with a shorter career. If you're correct about good OTs lasting longer than all but a few good CBs, it would bias me in favor of an OT. But I also tend to be biased in favor of quality over quantity. If you need numbers, there's free agency, there are the lower rounds of the draft, there are undrafted free agents like Kellen Heard, etc. Lots of ways to add numbers. But a difference-maker is very hard to find. I see three categories of difference-makers. Category 1: a player who can be productive while using up two opposing players. Bruce Smith could get sacks even while being double-teamed. Larry Fitzgerald can catch passes even while being double-covered. Category 2: a player who, by himself, can keep a category 1 difference-maker from getting out of hand. Tony Boselli could block Bruce Smith one-on-one. Deion Sanders could cover Jerry Rice one-on-one. Category 3: a player who plays a position which doesn't lend itself to category 1 or category 2, but who has a substantial impact on football games. Kurt Warner, Joe Montana, and Barry Sanders were category 3 difference-makers. I don't follow college ball, but based on draft projections Kalil looks like he'll be a category 2 difference-maker at OT. I'd rather have one difference-maker than two or even three non-difference makers. I'd be willing to trade the Bills' second round pick, or even second + third round pick away to move up and get him. Especially if the best alternative to doing that is to stay put and grab an OT not worthy of going tenth overall. If the Bills did take the second-best OT at tenth overall, they would probably be well-served to take a CB in the second, and a LB in the third. I realize that fills some holes on defense; and that filling those holes is important. Under my scenario, the Bills wouldn't have a second or third round pick, and so would have to wait until the fourth to take a LB. They'd probably have to wait until next year to do anything significant about CB. That's a source of pain. But the long-term benefit of having a difference-maker at LT would be more than adequate compensation for that pain. Whether the above-described trade-up scenario for Kalil is possible depends on a number of factors outside the Bills' control. The Bills should think in terms of things they can control, which in this case means the maximum price they'd be willing to pay to move up to take Kalil. If the opportunity to do a deal like that presents itself, great. If not, they adjust accordingly.

A valid point. Normally there are four key positions GMs tend to focus on with early first round picks: QB, RDE, LT, and CB. I'd love nothing more than for the Bills to take a franchise QB with their first round pick. Unfortunately, I don't think there will be any franchise QBs available at the Bills' pick. With the Mario Williams signing the Bills no longer need a RDE. That means it's a choice between LT and CB. Hmmm . . . I wonder which of the two Bill from NYC would prefer? One potential argument in favor of taking a LT is that Fitz won't necessarily be the Bills' QB for the next five years. If the plan is to draft a QB in 2013, taking a LT in this draft could make a lot of sense. But even with Fitz at QB, taking a LT might still make some sense. Defenses have been taking away the short stuff and daring the Bills to beat them deep. If defenses commit fully to that strategy--which they have--you almost have to burn them deep here and there. Even if your QB has horrible deep ball accuracy (which Fitz does). A good LT would open up the deep ball by giving Fitz more time to throw. An argument could also be made in favor of a CB. This assumes that the Bills plan to keep that CB here his whole career, instead of letting him go first-contract-and-out. If first-contract-and-out is the plan, then no credible argument could be made in favor of a CB! The pass rush and pass coverage are supposed to work together. The pass rush should force the QB to get rid of the ball quickly. The pass coverage should force the QB to hold onto the ball a long time. Together, those two units can and should prevent opposing QBs from having any good options. With the addition of Mario Williams, the Bills' pass rush looks like it can hold up its end of that bargain. If the Bills were to add a shutdown CB, their secondary would be a lot closer to being able to hold up its end! I'll also make an argument in favor of a WR. If you get a Larry Fitzgerald, he can make plays despite being double-covered. A guy like that would make the Bills' offense a lot harder to stop almost no matter what offensive style they employed.

I'm generally in agreement with Bill from NYC's posts about the importance of the offensive line. Even so, I think your post goes a little too far! A good or even great OL, alone, doesn't guarantee you the ability to pass, or that you'll have a good team. In 1998, the Rams had the Greatest Show on Turf--one of the best offenses the NFL had ever seen. Their OL was anchored by Hall of Fame LT Orlando Pace. They had a good RB in Marshall Faulk. In 2000, the Ravens had an offense which went five straight games without scoring a touchdown. They also had a very good OL, anchored by a Hall of Fame-level LT Jon Ogden. They had a good RB in Jamal Lewis. Both teams' OLs provided good to very good pass protection. Giving good pass protection to Tony Banks or Trent Dilfer is like giving $100,000 worth of art equipment to a fifth-rate artist. Most of the potential benefit is wasted. But giving good pass protection to Kurt Warner is like giving that expensive art equipment to Leonardo da Vinci. Every last drop of potential will be squeezed out of it. I'll grant that the '98 Rams had a much better receiving corps than the Ravens of 2000. (Even if the Ravens did have Hall of Fame TE Shannon Sharpe.) But most of the difference between those two teams' offenses was because of QB play.

Very good post! I'd like to expand on your point #3. A good offensive line provides good run blocking and (more importantly) good pass protection. A guy like Trent Dilfer isn't going to produce all that much anyway, whether you give him good pass protection or not. With a guy like him under center, much of the potential benefit of a good OL is wasted. But if you give a guy like Kurt Warner good pass protection, he will physically destroy the opposing defense! The combination of an elite QB and good pass protection is a very potent one.

I don't think that anyone is saying a QB alone can win a Super Bowl. Most of John Elway's career is a good example of what happens when you put a Hall of Fame QB on an untalented team. But if you don't have a franchise QB, you're at a major disadvantage when facing some other team with one. Consider the Giants team which just won the Super Bowl. As we saw, they have a good OL, a good defense (especially against the pass), and some other good players sprinkled in here and there. And they have a franchise quarterback. You might be able to build a team with a better pass rush than the Giants, or better RBs, or a better offensive line. But would you be enough better at those positions to make up for the fact that they have a franchise QB and you don't? That's really, really hard to do! When you combine a franchise QB with a reasonably complete team, you become a very tough nut to crack! Typically, the only way to beat a team like that is to yourself combine a franchise QB with a complete team.

I agree it's a team game, and that there's a limit to how much a franchise QB can compensate for weakness at other positions. On the other hand, if two reasonably complete teams face each other, and if only one of those teams has a franchise QB, the team with the franchise QB will usually win. The objective should be to obtain a franchise QB and to surround him with a good offensive supporting cast and a good defense. Once you have a team like that, you become a legitimate threat to win the Super Bowl. You will remain a legitimate threat to win the big one for as long as you keep your core intact. Of the three non-franchise QBs you mentioned to have won Super Bowls, only one (Brad Johnson) is from the last ten years. Brad Johnson was voted to the Pro Bowl the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. Even though Johnson wasn't a franchise QB, the Bucs still received good play from the QB position the year they won it all. The same can't be said about the Ravens of 2000. Dilfer was a mediocre QB who had a mediocre year. To compensate, the Ravens had one of the best defenses of all time. Each of their four starting defensive linemen legitimately required a double team to be successfully blocked. Their linebacking corps was led by a Hall of Fame player (Ray Lewis). But every linebacker was at or near a Pro Bowl level. Their defensive secondary had two shutdown corners to go along with guys like Ed Reed at safety. On the off chance that a defense like that wasn't enough, the Ravens also had a very good offensive line, led by a Hall of Fame level LT in Jon Ogden. They had a very good running game in the form of Jamal Lewis. And they had a Pro Bowl caliber TE in Shannon Sharpe. Not only that, but that Ravens team got lucky in the postseason. Only one of their postseason opponents (the Raiders) had a franchise QB; and Rich Gannon got knocked out before the end of the first half of the playoff game against the Ravens. With the possible exception of those 30 minutes against the Raiders, that Ravens team never had to face a postseason opponent that was both reasonably complete and that had a franchise QB.

I do not consider either Jack Kemp or Babe Parilli to have been franchise QBs. Jack Kemp threw for 114 TDs and 183 INTs: not a franchise QB ratio even by the standards of the '60s. He averaged only 6.9 yards per attempt, and completed 46.7% of his passes. I realize he played in a different era, but those are not franchise stats even after taking that into account. Babe Parilli averaged just 6.8 yards per attempt, completed 46.6% of his passes, and had more INTs than TDs. I'm not the world's biggest fan of QB rating, especially not when comparing QBs from different eras. Even so, it's still worth mentioning that for their respective careers, Parilli had a QB rating of 59.6, Kemp a QB rating of 57.3, and Kelly Holcomb a QB rating of 79.2. My earlier statement was that if you are a team without a franchise QB, you should expect to win the Super Bowl once every 250 years. (As an aside, I am using the term "franchise QB" to mean a QB at or near the level of Brady, the Mannings, etc. Fitzpatrick isn't that, regardless of how much money he's been paid.) There are typically about eight teams with franchise QBs at any one time. Of the last 10 Super Bowls, nine have been won by teams with franchise QBs. This means that 90% of Super Bowl wins are being distributed among those eight teams, with the remaining 10% being distributed among the 24 teams without franchise QBs. 10% chance of the Super Bowl being won by a team without a franchise QB * (1/24) = one Super Bowl win every 240 years for each team without a franchise QB.

Fitz isn't a franchise QB. A team without a franchise QB will, on average, win a Super Bowl once every 250 years. A team with a franchise QB will on average win a Super Bowl once every nine years. Franchise QBs are almost impossible to obtain: a typical NFL team obtains a franchise QB once every 42 years. The four teams in the AFC East have each been around since around 1960. Between then and the present, the Bills have had one franchise QB (Kelly), the Jets one (Namath), the Patriots 1.5 (the first half of Bledsoe's career, plus Brady), and the Dolphins 2 (Griese and Marino). That's less than 1.5 franchise QBs per team over the last 50 years. If you don't have a franchise QB, and if you have the chance to draft one, you do it. Period. There can be no possible question on that point. The only real question is whether Tannehill will or won't be a franchise QB.

If Dilfer's analysis is accurate, it would make Foles a very tempting QB prospect! If I was an NFL GM, I would hire someone to design a test to see how quickly someone can recognize and react to visual stimuli. The idea would be to give someone five or ten different visual cues, and require him to make a quick, accurate decision based on those cues. Someone who did well on such a test would presumably do well at quickly going through his reads, instead of locking on to one particular guy.

I used to feel that quarterback rating was the single best statistical measure of a QB's performance. But then I had a rude awakening: John Elway had a career QB rating of 79.9, and Kelly Holcomb a career QB rating of 79.2. I think that Holcomb is underrated, but this is ridiculous! After thinking a while, I realized the reason QB rating wasn't doing a very good job of illuminating the difference between those two QBs was because QB rating takes completion percentage into account. Any statistical measure which includes completion percentage is going to unfairly reward guys who focus on the short passing game--yes Holcomb that's you--while unfairly penalizing QBs who focus on intermediate and deep passes. A QB who goes 1/2 for 10 yards has achieved exactly as much as a QB who goes 2/2 for ten yards. I then began thinking about measurements which would allow me to fairly compare a short passing game QB like Holcomb with a gunslinger like Elway. The main tool for evaluating RBs is yards per rush attempt. Why not use yards per pass attempt to evaluate QBs? Holcomb averaged 6.6 yards per attempt over the course of his career; as compared to 7.1 yards per attempt for Elway. Yards per attempt shines a light on the difference between those two QBs in a way that QB rating does not. The above thought process was later validated by an excellent article in the New York Times. The author of the article had performed a regression analysis which demonstrated that a small number of variables can be used to explain 80% of the observed differences in teams' win/loss records. Those variable are yards per pass attempt, interception percentage, and yards per rushing attempt. (As well as the defensive equivalents.) Yards per pass attempt is three times more important than either interception percentage or yards per rushing attempt (for both offense and defense). I agree that a QB can sometimes achieve a high yards per attempt stat despite having serious flaws in his game. You are correct to point to Losman's 2006 season as a good example of that. Sooner or later, defenses will figure out how to exploit those flaws. Once that happens, the QB's yards per attempt stat will typically come back to earth. Trent Dilfer averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career, and 6.6 yards per attempt during his year with the Ravens. Alex Smith averaged 7.1 yards per attempt this past season with the 49ers. Smith's 2011 season was not Dilfer-like. Trent Edwards has averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Almost all of that average was compiled in Buffalo. With the Bills, Edwards typically had a one trick pony as his #1 WR, no TE, no offensive coordinator, and a suspect OL. In other words, his supporting cast was at least as bad as the one Fitz has had these past two years; and possibly worse. Fitz averaged 6.8 yards per attempt in 2010 and 6.7 yards per attempt in 2011. That's an improvement over Edwards, but not much of one. The eyeball test says the same thing: Fitz's play looks better than Edwards' play. But Fitz also looks like a guy playing a lot closer to Edwards' level than to Aaron Rodgers' level. At least, that's what my eyeballs tell me, and the stats bear that out.

I strongly disagree with the bolded text. Fitzpatrick's averaged 6.8 yards per attempt during his best season. Joe Flacco has averaged 7.1 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Flacco may not be a franchise QB, but he's a lot closer to being one than is Fitzpatrick. As for those who say you don't need a franchise QB: teams with franchise QBs tend to win a Super Bowl once every nine years. Teams without win a Super Bowl once every 250 years. If your goal is merely to make the playoffs, you can get away without having a franchise QB. But if you actually want to win the Super Bowl--as opposed to getting your heart broken in the postseason--you almost have to have a franchise QB. Thus far, Alex Smith has averaged a disappointing 6.4 yards per attempt over the course of his career. But this past season he averaged a very solid 7.1 yards per attempt. Smith's dramatic improvement over the last two seasons is a major reason why the 49ers accomplished as much as they did.

I apologize if I was unclear in my earlier post (as seems to have been the case). It's quite possible to win a Super Bowl with decent but unspectacular players at some positions. The Packers team that won this past Super Bowl is a good example of that--especially after taking into account the effect of injuries. But while it's possible to get away with having decent but not great players at some positions, it's almost impossible to win a Super Bowl without a franchise quarterback. Teams with franchise QBs tend to win one Super Bowl every nine years, teams without once every 250 years. An average OG or an average SS can be part of a Super Bowl winning team. With very few exceptions, an average QB cannot be. If you trade away an average OG, you're taking away someone who could have been a starting player for a Super Bowl winning team. That sets you back over the long term. But trading away an average starting QB is different, because you knew that you were going to have to upgrade the QB position before you could win the Super Bowl. Because that average QB wasn't part of the long-term plan anyway, trading him away does not set that long-term plan back. Trading away that average QB--and going 1-15 with a truly horrendous replacement--gives you your best possible chance of being able to draft a franchise QB.