Orton's Arm

Thanks to Bill Polian, the Bills were able to reach four consecutive Super Bowls, and the Colts were able to earn a Super Bowl ring. He was the best GM the Bills have ever had. But for at least the last decade, he has quietly been promoting his son Chris to ever-greater levels of responsibility. It has been argued--convincingly--that these promotions were based on nepotism, not performance. The last several years in particular have seen Bill take a step backward in order to let Chris have the limelight. About five or seven years ago, the Colts had enough overall talent--a complete enough team--that they won the Super Bowl. More recently their team was good enough that they made it to the Super Bowl, and put up a good fight before finally succumbing to the Saints. Yes, those teams had Peyton Manning. But they needed more than just him to get to, let alone win, the Super Bowl. This past season the Colts were a 2-14 team. As devastating as the Manning injury was, the reasons for that 2-14 record go beyond just that. The Colts have acquired very little new talent during the last three or four years. As Chris's role in the organization has become progressively larger, the rate of talent acquisition has tapered off. The case has been made that this is no coincidence. Over the last decade or so, the Colts' front office has lost a number of key people--key people who were asked to leave because of personality conflicts with Chris. My sense is that those people have not been replaced, and that the better front office people in the league would be loath to serve under Chris. Also, I have seen nothing which might suggest that Chris is himself a particularly able talent evaluator. Would I want Bill Polian to return to the Bills' GM spot? Absolutely! Provided, of course, that he still had the same or similar fire he had back in the '90s, and also provided that his son Chris wasn't allowed within 100 miles of Orchard Park. My sense is that Bill Polian has lost most of his fire, and that he envisions making Chris an integral part of whichever football operation he runs. My sense is that no matter where Bill goes, he will continue relinquishing control of day-to-day operations, making room for Chris to wield even more power. I see nothing which would suggest a team should consider hiring Chris, even as a scout. Ralph Wilson should not even consider any arrangement which involves making Chris a part of the Bills' football operations.

Good post. I think you and I are on the same page about how an elite quarterback attracts top-tier free agents. If trading up for a franchise QB isn't an option in this draft--which it may not be--there is always what I'd call the "big brass ____" option. The Bills will not choose this option, even though they should. The objective of this option is to draft Barkley. To achieve this, the Bills would either trade away or release Ryan Fitzpatrick. Their starter for the year would be Tyler Thigpen. They would sign a Craig Nall or someone like that to be the backup. In addition, they should release McGee, Florence, and any other reasonably good but aging veterans they may have. The objective here is to create a roster which cannot go more than 2-14 at best, no matter what happens. At the same time, the Bills must not release any player who represents a long-term solution as a starter. Therefore, they should hold onto Fred Jackson, Stevie Johnson, and other players who are good, and young enough to help the team for the next several years to come. If the Bills went 0-16 or 1-15--as they almost certainly would with Thigpen under center--they would be in a position to draft Barkley, or whichever other franchise QB they felt was worthy of a top-2 pick. This method has the advantage of getting the Bills one of the three pillars they need to win the Super Bowl, without having to trade away a king's ransom. While a franchise quarterback is worth several kings' ransoms, it's better to get out of paying that price if at all possible. This strategy has the added advantage of putting the Bills in control of whether they get a franchise quarterback or not. (As opposed to having to rely on other teams' willingness to let the Bills trade up.) But like I mentioned earlier, the Bills will not do this. The thought process which would lead to the above conclusion isn't part of their institutional mindset. Instead, I expect them to continue to achieve records in the 5-11 - 9-7 range. With records like those, they will continue to be excluded from the elite franchise QB talent in the draft. Unable to draft a real quarterback, they will allow that hole on the roster to persist indefinitely, like an open sore. That open sore will linger on year after year. Every year it's there is another year the Bills will not win the Super Bowl.

I have seen evidence which supports the conclusion you have reached. If you are correct--as you very well may be--there are several possible reasons why. 1) Ralph is more interested in money than in winning. This seems odd, considering that he can presumably afford whichever luxuries he himself would want or desire anyway. His heirs will receive a very rich inheritance when he dies, regardless of how the team is run over the next few years. 2) Those running the organization are more confident in their ability to extract money from the fans than they are in their ability to create a long-term winning football program. In a perfect world they would like to win games and make money. But they figure this isn't a perfect world, and one of two isn't too terrible. 3) It is felt there is less risk, and therefore more job security, with a ploy to make money than with an effort to build a winning team. If you trade the house for a franchise quarterback--as I suggested in another thread--and if he soon experiences a career-ending injury, then there go all your carefully laid plans for a winning team. The Bills' marketing plans are less subject to this kind of random risk. It could be pointed out that a strong marketing effort and the creation of a winning team are not mutually exclusive. The Bills sold plenty of merchandise and tickets back when Polian was GM. While a winning team will probably require a higher payroll than a losing team, it is not exactly as though the Bills of the last ten years have been wise in their spending. The contracts given to Lawyer Milloy, Langston Walker, Cornell Greene, Peerless Price (the second time around), Chris Kelsay, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and others come to mind as examples of poor spending decisions. Some of those poor spending decisions--such as the Terrell Owens signing--are explicable in marketing terms. Most just seem like bad football decisions, and would seem to justify the views of those within the organization who lack confidence in the Bills' ability to field a good team. The problem with substituting hype for performance is that sooner or later you wear out your welcome with the fans. The Detroit Lions are a good example of this. Detroit is similar to Buffalo in that it's a mid-sized Northern Rust Belt city, with an industrial base long past its prime. Due to decades of ineptitude, the Lions do not have a fan base which is nearly as large or as supportive as is that of the Packers. In the '60s the Bills won some AFL championships. The '70s were not great, but at least they had OJ Simpson and the Electric Company. In the late '80s the team started coming into its own, followed by four consecutive Super Bowl appearances in the early '90s. Later in the '90s the team still had a good defense, and would have won a playoff game had it not been for the Music City Miracle. But the playoff drought has now reached its twelfth year. Memories of the Super Bowl years--or even the Wade Phillips era--are starting to fade. If this ineptitude is allowed to continue, then over the long run the Bills' fan base will likely become like that of the Lions, back when the Lions were in the midst of decades of ineptitude. On the other hand, given Ralph's age, he is not necessarily focused on the long run.

I agree with the point you're making, and would like to expand upon it. In my opinion, there are three pillars to a strong football team: the quarterback, the offensive line, and the defensive pass rush. A team which is strong in all three areas can then sprinkle in a few good skill players as needed. The last time the Bills had a real answer at quarterback, Jim Kelly was still wearing cleats. The last time the Bills had a good long-term offensive line, Kent Hull still donned a Bills uniform. And the last time the Bills had a real solution to the need for a pass rush, Bruce Smith was still a member of the team. The Bills' subsequent weakness in those three areas is why the last time the Bills won a playoff game, Kelly was under center. Another factor to consider is what I will call net player value. Suppose (for example) that Donte Whitner is a 45 (on a scale of 1 - 100) and George Wilson is a 55 on that same scale. In order to put Whitner on the field you have to put Wilson on the bench. The net player value of Whitner is 45 - 55 = -10. Spiller also has a low net player value, because putting him on the field typically involves putting Fred Jackson on the bench. This low net player value is not Spiller's fault--he is a good player. It's Nix's fault for using a top-10 pick on the one position where acquiring an elite talent was least necessary. If (for example) Nix had used the pick on a WR, then that WR and Stevie Johnson could have provided a good 1/2 combination. If that pick had been used on an offensive lineman, the offensive line could have been shuffled around as needed to allow the pick to become a starter, without having to bench a good lineman. The same could also be said about using the pick on a DL, a LB, or even a CB. Another flaw with the Bills' drafting strategy--at least inasmuch as they can be said to have a drafting "strategy"--is that there have been several times when they have drafted a player at a position at which they were strong already, only to allow an existing good player to leave via free agency a year or two later. For example, they drafted McKelvin 12th overall, and then proceeded to let Jabari Greer walk in free agency. They drafted Lynch, and then traded away McGahee. They drafted Spiller, and then traded away Lynch. This sort of thing is singularly stupid, at least if their objective is to win football games. It is not as though the Bills' rosters of the last ten years have been bursting with so much talent that they can afford to let some of their best players leave in free agency during the primes of their careers.

8th = Whitner 9th = Spiller 11th = Maybin 11th = McKelvin 12th = Lynch That's two running backs, two defensive backs, and a defensive player with the size and strength of a DB and the speed of a LB. At least a first round bust at WR would be something new.

Just to add to your very solid post: the Bills have had trouble signing top tier free agents. If you were a highly touted free agency, and if you cared about winning in addition to your paycheck, and if you had comparable offers from the Packers and the Bills, which team would you choose? The last time the Bills had top tier QB play was the first eight games of 2002. They were able to parlay those eight games of excellent quarterback play into the free agent signing of Takeo Spikes. How many Spikes-like free agents have the Bills signed since then? How much top tier quarterback play have they received since then? But the above paragraph is a merely secondary reason why the Bills should obtain a franchise quarterback in the upcoming draft if they possibly can. The Bills should start by deciding to do whatever it takes to win the Super Bowl. All their decisions should flow from that starting premise. Nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners have had a franchise quarterback. The tenth team was the Bucs of 2002, which had an elite defense and a QB who had a Pro Bowl year that year in the form of Brad Johnson. If you decide to do whatever it takes to win the Super Bowl, then you also have to do whatever it takes to get a franchise quarterback. Whatever it takes! Up to and including trading away the house for one player. Such a trade is not comparable to the Ricky Williams trade, because the impact of an elite running back is not comparable to the impact of an elite quarterback. Had Mike Ditka traded away all those picks and received Peyton Manning in return, he would look like an absolute genius. Even if a GM had paid double the Ricky Williams price, he would still have looked smart--as long as he'd received Peyton Manning in return! The Patriots defense just finished allowing the most passing yards in NFL history, and yet they are going to the playoffs. They have two of the three pieces in place needed to win the Super Bowl. (The three pieces being a franchise quarterback, a good offensive supporting cast, and a good defense.) Without even a semblance of that third piece they probably won't win the Super Bowl. But they are a team to be reckoned with this year. And if they put together a credible defense for next year, and if their offense stays on track, they'll be a very legitimate threat to win next year's Super Bowl. Of the three above-mentioned pieces, most can be broken down into smaller and more manageable components. A weakness in one area can be compensated for by strength elsewhere. For example, if your RDE is a good but not spectacular pass rusher, you can compensate by adding good pass rushers at OLB. If your #1 WR is competent but not outstanding, you can compensate by adding a good pass catching TE, a good #2 WR, or a RB who catches passes out of the backfield. The franchise QB piece is unique in that it must be added all in one lump, and also unique in that you cannot settle for anything less than elite. Merely being above average at that position is almost certain to exclude you from hoisting a Super Bowl trophy. There is no other position about which that can be said. There is a certain amount of randomness in talent acquisition. When the Bills first signed Fred Jackson as an UDFA, neither they nor anyone else realized they were getting one of the finest running backs in the NFL. More generally, teams will tend to look at large numbers of lower round draft picks and UDFAs each year, hoping that one or two of them will turn out to be something special. This kind of randomness is acceptable at almost every position, because strength at one position can be used to compensate for an average player at another. But this randomness is not acceptable at quarterback, because the Bills must have an elite quarterback to give themselves a realistic chance of winning the Super Bowl. All of this means that if the Bill have the chance to add an elite quarterback in this upcoming draft, they should take it. They should pay whatever price is required, and pay it with a smile.

One of the things I noticed from your earlier list is that the Bills gave up 65 hits. The lowest number of hits for anyone on the list was 51, and the highest was 110. Just from eyeballing the list, the Bills seem to be in the top 25% or 30% of offensive lines when it comes to preventing hits. That doesn't necessarily mean that the Bills' OL is in the top 25% or 30% of OLs around the league. As others have pointed out, the Bills' system is designed to get rid of the ball quickly, thereby reducing the number of hits and sacks. The pass protection stat I'd most like to see is Average Time Before Pressure. If the QB was able to wait 3.5 seconds in the pocket before pressure arrived, the Average Time Before Pressure for that one play would be 3.5. If the QB threw the ball before pressure arrived, you would add, say, 1.5 seconds to however long the QB took to throw the ball in order to calculate the Average Time Before Pressure for that play. Example: the QB gets rid of the ball in 3.5 seconds, no one on the defense created pressure before or during the throw. Therefore the Average Time Before Pressure on that play is 3.5 + 1.5 = 5 seconds. If you knew each team's Average Time Before Pressure, you could rank the teams' quality of pass protection.

When Donte hit free agency, the rest of the league had the option of making him one of the most highly paid safeties in the league. Obviously that didn't happen. No one thought he was worth the contract one would give to a top-10 or even top-15 safety. That is what the rest of the league thought about Donte Whitner! I'll grant that was a year ago, and that it's possible Whitner has played at a higher level for the 49ers than he had for the Bills. I haven't watched any 49ers games this year, so I don't know. But even if his play was somehow good enough to justify his selection as a Pro Bowl alternate--which seems highly dubious at best--it is a terrible strategy for a team to use its second-highest draft pick of the decade on a SS who manages, in his very best year, to eke his way into a Pro Bowl alternate position!

Agreed. The Bills will not win the Super Bowl as long as Ryan Fitzpatrick is under center. One possible strategy would be to trade Fitzpatrick away, start Thigpen in 2012, go 1-15 or 0-16, and use the resulting top-3 pick on a QB. A GM would have to have a great deal of confidence about his short-term job security to employ such a strategy.

Your point about the offensive line is 100% spot-on. The Bills of the last 10 - 15 years have been like a house. The lack of an OL has been like a missing roof, causing everything to get rained on and wood to become warped. The fact the Bills haven't had a real quarterback since Kelly is like missing walls and a missing frame. The Bills' problems on defense have been like missing floors, missing stairways, and even a missing foundation. The Bills' problems in the front office have been like problems with the land itself. Perhaps the land consists of mud or quicksand, making it almost impossible to build or maintain anything. And the lack of commitment to winning--both on Ralph's part and on the part of some of his righthand men--is like having a series of liens on the deed to the house, as well as zoning rulings which make it very difficult to add in the missing pieces, or even to maintain that which has already been put in place.

At least according to Gene Dallal, the chief of Tufts' Biostatistics Unit, "There have been many attempts at online statistics instruction. HyperStat is one of the better ones, not only for the content but also for the additional links." The article to which I linked came from HyperStat. Dallal also wrote his own article about the regression effect (a.k.a. regression toward the mean). The same regression effect was also described in this short Stanford article, and is the subject of this longer Harvard article. Rather than read through all that--especially the Harvard article!--I suggest thinking of the phenomenon in the following terms. When an initial test is 0% due to random chance, then on a retest there will be no regression toward the mean. For example, if you measure someone's height at 6'2" the first time around, then upon being remeasured his height will still be 6'2". Now imagine a different test which is 100% dependent on luck or random chance. For example, students might be tested on their "ability" to predict ten coin flips. Suppose you were to gather up students who got eight or more predictions right, and were to retest them. Upon being retested, that group would achieve the same success rate one would expect from random chance. Now suppose the results of some initial test were due 50% to innate qualities, and 50% to random chance. Suppose you were to select the 10% of the population which did the best on some initial test. Their initial success was 50% due to innate traits, and 50% due to luck. Upon being retested, the luck element of their initial success will disappear, while the portion based on innate qualities will remain behind. Upon being retested, the people in this group will be 50% closer to the population mean.

There were games when Trent Edwards and JP Losman played well. There were a few games when Rob Johnson played very well. With a guy like Fitz, you have to look at his overall body of work. Is Fitz as good as, or perhaps slightly better than, the QBs for the Jets and Dolphins? Quite possibly. But neither of those two teams will win the Super Bowl unless or until they can upgrade themselves at the QB position. The same can also be said about the Bills.

My understanding has always been that expected value can apply both to large populations and to single trials. Consider the first example from the Wikipedia article: Similar examples are used in the Dartmouth article about expected value. In the big scheme of things, misremembering the definition of expected value (as you seem to have done) is not a big deal at all. My own memory is far from perfect. Others on this board have typically been very generous in their treatment of me when I'd misremembered something--provided that I first admitted my mistake. I'll also add that I've been able to maintain reasonably friendly relations with the overwhelming majority of people on this board, and I hope I'll be able to maintain them with you. My reason for being here is to engage in friendly and intelligent discussions, not the name-calling contest which Tom seems to enjoy. That said, I'd like to provide an explanation of the tone I've used thus far in my responses toward Tom. In my initial discussions with him, I'd repeatedly and correctly explained statistical concepts, and Tom responded with disagreement and ridicule. Eventually, it occurred to me that I was acting foolishly. Not about statistics--everything I wrote was correct, and Tom's objections were blithering idiocy. Tom was acting like a bully, and I was trying to reason with him! That was incredibly stupid of me on a social level, regardless of how correct my statistics had been. I will not make the same mistake twice. The second Tom starts running his mouth about anything statistics-related, I will challenge not just whichever erroneous statement he might have made, but the underlying stupidity which led him to make it. I will not attempt to spare his ego or preserve some shred of credibility for him. Mercy is always a mistake when dealing with a bully. I will not show Tom mercy again.

> Yeah, I don't have a knack for statistics. Agreed. > Ignore my publications on statistical physics . . . Trust me, I have. Nothing you have to say about statistics could possibly be worth reading. > and your ridiculous "true average value" of a die roll being 3.5. The concept of expected value is yet another statistical concept you are too stupid to understand.

I have both strengths and limitations. I'd like to think that I'm honest with myself about both. I certainly would not try to make a living doing something for which I was badly suited. This is where you and I differ. You clearly do not have a knack for statistics, and have extremely limited ability to answer "What does this really mean?" type questions about statistically-related material. Despite these limitations you have somehow managed to get a degree in a statistically-related subject, and have even parlayed that educational background into a dead-end government job. Either you should be commended for your combination of work ethic and political skill for having achieved all this despite a shockingly bad understanding of statistics, or else the system which failed to rid itself of blatant gross incompetence should be condemned. The objections you'd initially raised to the Hyperstats article were laughable, and destroyed any statstically-related credibility you might otherwise have had. The same statistical phenomenon described by the Hyperstats article was also described in articles from Stanford, Tufts, and other top institutions. After you were shown those other articles, you abandoned your initial objections to the Hyperstats article. You created a brand new objection: that the Hyperstats article was wrong because the regression effect applied to autocorrelations only. This made it glaringly obvious that you still didn't understand what for many people is a fairly simple and intuitively obvious concept, even after you had been shown several clearly and intelligently written articles about it. You are a stupid human being who, at least in the eyes of some, has succeeded in appearing intelligent. I cannot recall your having made a single correct statement about statistics. Yet you have succeeded in persuading many on these boards--at least among those unfamiliar with statistics--that your view of the subject should be taken seriously. My respect for your intellect is precisely zero, but I do have to admit you have a knack for spreading confusion and erroneous information. That knack probably represents one of the two things at which you're best. (The other being online bullying.) But do not expect me to congratulate you for "gifts" which bring no benefit to anyone, not even to yourself.

Yup. Here I am. I don't have a lot to add to the OP's post. I think most fans recognize that Fitz is a mediocre QB who had a few good games against lousy pass defenses who hadn't yet figured out how to defend the Fitz/Gailey short-passing-game-only attack. But if for some reason someone feels inspired to learn more about the regression effect (a.k.a. regression to the mean), I'd suggest this article.

I agree that Eli was disappointing that year during the regular season, which is an important reason why the Giants only went 9-7 and snuck into the playoffs. Once the Giants were in the playoffs, Eli took his game up a notch or three. That improvement carried over into the following season. He went from a very disappointing 6.3 yards per attempt in '07 to a respectable 6.8 yards per attempt in '08, and a franchise-like 7.9 yards per attempt in '09. He averaged 7.4 and 8.2 yards per attempt in 2010 and 2011 respectively. He's been playing at a franchise QB level the last three years. Just as Eli has played at a franchise level the last three seasons, he also looked like he was at or near a franchise level in the '07/'08 postseason. He won the Super Bowl MVP award. He also played very well in the playoff games. As for the OP's point, nine of the last ten Super Bowl winners had franchise QBs. As for the tenth--the Tampa Bay Bucs--they had Brad Johnson at quarterback. He played well enough that year to be selected to the Pro Bowl. Even with the Bucs' ridiculously good defense, they still needed a high level of QB play to win the Super Bowl. It's been over a decade since the Ravens won the Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer under center. Every player on their defense was at or near a Pro Bowl level. Some were at or near a Hall of Fame level. Every player on their four man defensive line required a double team to be kept under control. Their offensive line was led by a Hall of Fame-level LT in Jon Ogden. They had an excellent running game in the form of Jamal Lewis. They had a Pro Bowl/Hall of Fame TE in Shannon Sharpe. So yeah . . . the Bills can win a Super Bowl with mediocre QB play. All they have to do is what the Ravens did: make sure that every player on their defense is at or near a Pro Bowl level, create one of the three best defenses in NFL history, build a Ravens-like OL with a Hall of Fame LT, and hope that a few breaks go their way. Or they could find a franchise quarterback, and build from there!

Thanks!

This is an excellent question. I've periodically wondered whether Fitz has been playing hurt since that hit. The problem is that nothing about Fitz's body of work prior to this season suggests that he's a franchise QB. Even in the first seven games of this season, Fitz made a number of inaccurate throws that a franchise QB wouldn't have made. Against New England and other teams with very porous pass defenses, Fitz was very fortunate that more of his throws weren't intercepted. Fitz had very significant early season success. But he achieved that success without very significant early season accuracy. Instead, Gailey seemed to have designed an offense that could be successful while masking both Fitz's lack of arm strength and his lack of good accuracy. This offense relied on Fitz to make very quick decisions and quick throws, to target the one receiving threat that was mismatched against a defender, and to get him the ball almost instantly. Because the throws themselves were typically very easy, Fitz's lack of accuracy didn't matter all that much. Since then, defenses have figured out that Buffalo's passing attack poses no threat at all except for its short game. Defenses can (and have) ganged up on the short passing game, significantly reducing Buffalo's offensive success. Nothing about Fitz's play--either this season or previous seasons--suggests that that he'd be particularly good at throwing intermediate or deep passes. He is too inaccurate for that. Is Fitz playing hurt? Maybe. Would he look better if he was healthy, or if his supporting cast had remained uninjured? Almost certainly. But none of this changes the fact that he has not, at any point, proven himself a franchise quarterback, despite having been in the league for years, and with numerous starts under his belt. If the Bills have the opportunity to draft a franchise QB in the 2012 draft, they should embrace it with open arms. I would be perfectly willing to see them trade up to obtain a franchise QB.

I agree we need to add the long ball to the offense. But doing that will take more than just a speed receiver. We will also need a QB who can throw a reasonably accurate long ball and an offensive line which can hold its blocks long enough for the long ball to open up.

Back in 2006 Losman threw for over 3000 yards. His biggest accomplishment since then has involved the Las Vegas Locomotives.

Good analogy, and I agree. I'll also add that Fitz was playing against some very bad pass defenses those first few weeks. Also, defensive coordinators hadn't yet figured out how to stop the style of offense the Bills were using. Now they have.

I think we're on the same page about the importance a very good OLB would have to the defense. I strongly agree that the Bills need more pass rushers besides just Darius. An elite OLB, when combined with Darius and (hopefully) a healthy Kyle Williams, could give the front-7 a tremendous boost! But if it's a choice between an elite OLB and an elite QB, which should the Bills choose? As I see it, there are two draft day philosophies. Philosophy 1: The focus here is primarily on the upcoming season. A GM using this philosophy will take whichever player will help the team the most in his rookie year, or his second year at most. Marv employed this philosophy back in 2006. His thought was that a SS and a DT could hold the defense together over the short-term, and would be excellent building blocks for the long run. Given that the Bills went a respectable 7-9 during Marv's first year as GM, his drafting philosophy seemed to pay off--at least over the short-term. Philosophy 2: The idea here is to begin with the end in mind. Over the course of several years, you will use your draft picks to build the team as you envision it. The emphasis here is on the long-term. The thought is that it's much more important to have the team you want after X number of years than it is to worry overmuch about your record during your first year or two as GM. According to Philosophy 1, taking the OLB over the QB would be the correct decision. An elite OLB would probably have a more significant impact on the Bills' W/L record in 2012 than would a rookie QB. (Even a rookie QB destined to become franchise.) A GM adhering to Philosophy 2 would examine the situation differently. His long-term vision would call for both an elite QB and an elite pass rushing OLB. If over the short-term he could only obtain one or the other, he'd take whichever one played at the more valuable and harder-to-fill position. In this case, that means he'd take the QB. He realizes he cannot complete his vision all in one year, and so he waits until later to take the OLB. (Which he eventually will!) I personally adhere to Philosophy 2, so I'd also take the QB in that situation.

This is a good point. On the one hand, the Colts would have been extremely foolish to pass up Manning, whether they'd previously upgraded their offensive line or not. On the other, you're completely right about the importance of upgrading the offensive line. Manning had some rough games as a rookie, but by the end of his second year I think it was clear to most people he was going to be a special player. After the end of Steve Young's second year the Bucs gave up on him, and traded him away for a second round pick. As you pointed out, the Colts made a very serious draft day investment in their offensive line. The Bucs did practically nothing to fix their sieve of a line. That's probably the biggest single reason why Manning's career got off to a faster start than Young's. (That said, you need to draft a Manning or a Young in the first place if you want a QB who will have a Manning-like career!) You have to take a franchise QB if one is available, because they're so ridiculously rare. But once you have one, you need to be serious about the offensive line! One of the (many) reasons I like keeping rookie quarterbacks on the bench is that it gives the general manager an extra year to fix the offensive line before the QB gets thrown to the wolves. I also agree with your point about the need for an OLB--this defense is really hurting due to that lack. If the Bills don't have an opportunity to take a franchise QB in this upcoming draft, a good LT or pass rushing OLB would be a very solid choice.

You and I are 98% of the way toward being on the same page. I think there should be some sensitivity to player development, which is why I favor a policy of never allowing a rookie QB to play, ever! I also think that once a team uses a very early draft pick on a QB, it should immediately look for ways to upgrade its receiving corps and (above all) its offensive line! (Assuming of course that upgrades are needed.) Take a guy like Steve Young. Tampa Bay seemed almost determined to do everything wrong with him. They started him as a rookie. Even though their offensive line was a sieve, they made almost no effort whatsoever to improve it in any way. Nor did they use their early picks on WRs or TEs. Instead, they squandered their early picks on defensive players--especially DBs--and a RB. Very TD/Marv/Jauron-like. All that stuff set Young's development back, which is why after two years in the league, the Bucs felt comfortable trading him away for a second round pick. Obviously the Tampa Bay fiasco didn't ruin Young, as he proceeded to prove! I realize most QBs are not Steve Young stories--the last such story was Steve Young himself! (Unless you want to count Rich Gannon.) It is ludicrous to imagine Harrington or Losman or almost any other first round bust rising to the level of Manning or Rodgers, regardless of how good a situation they'd been placed in. Likewise, Sanchez and the Jets is not an example of how a good situation can help a quarterback develop. It's an example of how a good situation can and is being used to hide the fact that Sanchez is nowhere near the level of Manning or Rodgers. Sanchez is the Jets' Trent Dilfer, except that the Jets don't have the same kind of defense the Ravens had back in 2000.