Orton's Arm

No, it's not nitpicking. I respect your desire to see errors corrected. In this case there was no error. Jim Kelly was a first round pick, but he wasn't the Bills' first pick of that draft. In 1983, the Bills used the first of their two first round picks on Tony Hunter, TE. The second of their two first rounders was used on Jim Kelly. Hunter went 12th overall, and Kelly was taken 14th overall. It's been convincingly argued that such a small draft position difference is almost the same thing as using one's first pick of the draft on a QB. This contrasts to the 2004 draft, when the Bills used the 13th overall pick on Lee Evans, and the 22nd overall pick on Losman. A difference like that is significant, and means a lot more than the difference between 12th and 14th overall! Jim Kelly was the closest the Bills ever came to using their first draft pick on a QB. The Kelly era was the brightest time in Bills' history. Somehow I don't think those two things are a coincidence! I'm not implying that using an early pick on a QB is a guarantee of success. But if a team doesn't have a real QB, and doesn't intend to use an early pick to obtain one, odds are that it's setting itself up for long-term failure. Hoping that one's team will be the next recipient of a Tom Brady story is like confusing a lottery ticket with a retirement plan.

I disagree with the bolded statement. The Bills' poor track record is due in large part to management's shortsightedness. Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used their first pick of the draft on a RB ten different times. During that span, they have not once used their first pick of the draft on a QB. A RB is a "win now" type pick, because it's expected that a rookie RB can come in and contribute immediately. The downside is that RBs typically have short careers. A QB is a build for the future pick, because rookie QBs are typically useless, and belong firmly on the bench. The upside is that a QB is the most important player on the team, and QBs tend to have longer careers than players at most other positions. TD's regime is a perfect example of "win now." In his very first draft, he used a second round pick on a RB, even though the Bills already had Antowain Smith. A few years later he'd use a first round pick on another RB even though the Bills already had Travis Henry. The second time around he tried to make himself seem future-oriented, by pointing out that McGahee would be out with an injury during his rookie year. But the bottom line is that he was still spinning his wheels at the RB position instead of implementing a serious blueprint to build a successful team over the long haul. Similarly, TD traded away a first round pick for an aging veteran (Bledsoe), who was released three years later. He allowed his DB with the best combination of youth + proven accomplishment to go first-contract-and-out. Letting Antoine Winfield leave gave TD the salary cap space he needed to overpay for an aging Troy Vincent and for Lawyer Milloy. The Bills went 5-11 in 2005, TD's fifth (and last) season with the team. Not only were the Bills a bad team, they were an aging bad team. There were no long-term solutions at four of the five OL spots, there was nothing at quarterback, nothing at WR except for Lee Evans, very little in the defensive front-7 except for Aaron Schobel, and little or nothing at safety. Back when TD was general manager, Marv Levy praised the trade for Bledsoe. He said that if you used a first round pick on a QB and it turned out to be Drew Bledsoe, you'd be very happy with the pick. Shortly after becoming GM, he said that if you build for the future, you're building for someone else's future. Based on these data, it should surprise no one that Marv continued "living for the moment," exactly as TD had done. He went into his first draft with the thought that the defense had to be improved right away, with the two most critical positions being SS and DT. That blinkered focus was why he ignored better players at other positions in order to squander his first round picks on Whitner and McCargo. Going into his second draft, Marv once again adopted a "live for today" mentality. Not content with the 12,535 early picks the Bills had used on RBs over the last decade, Marv decided to use the 12th overall pick on yet another RB. He then traded up in the second round to grab a LB, in part because LBs are typically expected to make solid contributions their rookie years. In addition to these things, Jabari Greer was allowed to go first-contract-and-out, and the 12th overall pick was used on his intended replacement (McKelvin). Throwing away top-15 picks like this in a "live for today" celebration would be inexcusable--at least to someone seriously interested in building the team for the long haul. It is absolutely boneheaded to create holes by letting your youngest and best players leave by free agency, only to use your very best draft picks to fill those holes. Bill Belichick is a guy who builds for the future. The kind of trade Belichick loves the most is to trade away the Patriots' second round pick in this year's draft for the other team's first round pick in next year's draft. Do you think a guy like Belichick would have indulged himself in even a tenth of the outright stupidity of the TD/Levy era? His disciplined approach to building a team is one of the reasons why the Patriots obtained three Super Bowl rings under his regime. The Raiders appear to have adopted the same "live for today" shortsighted mentality associated with TD and Levy. Not only is this an extremely bad trade for the Raiders, but I strongly suspect that if this decision is representative of how the franchise is being run, they are unlikely to have much success until their current GM is replaced.

I agree that Phillip Rivers is a step down from Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers. I agree that there's an element of risk involved when selecting a QB very early in the draft. But as you know, some prospects are riskier than others. Pre-draft, Peyton Manning was felt to be more of a sure thing than Ryan Leaf because of the former's proven track record. But Leaf supposedly had more "upside" due to his arm strength. I would not trade away a draft for a QB with physical potential and "upside," such as Leaf or Jamarcus Russell. But I would do so for a guy who was felt to be close to a sure thing, like Andrew Luck. To expand on that point a little further, I'd like to take a look at the Bills' drafts starting in 2000, and ending in 2009. It would take too long to list every player from each of those drafts, so instead I'll just list the guys who amounted to something. 2000: nobody 2001: Nate Clements, Aaron Schobel 2002: nobody 2003: Terrence McGee 2004: Lee Evans 2005: nobody 2006: Kyle Williams 2007: nobody 2008: Demetrius Bell, Stevie Johnson 2009: Eric Wood, Jairus Byrd, Andy Levitre If you had all ten of those guys in their prime, and if Green Bay offered you Aaron Rodgers in exchange for them, would you make that trade? I suspect the above question could be argued either way. If a franchise QB like Rodgers is of equal or greater value than ten years of Bills' drafts, it stands to reason that it would be worthwhile to give up two or three years' worth of drafts for a player like Luck. Assuming, of course, that you're confident that Luck will be at or near the level of Peyton Manning or Aaron Rodgers.

The New York times performed a regression analysis to determine the relative value of the passing game versus a running game. Reducing your QB's interception percentage is just as important as improving your RB's yards per carry. Improving your QB's yards per attempt is three times as important as improving your RB's yards per attempt. Overall, the passing attack is four times as important as the running game. I'd argue that the ceiling of your running game is determined at least as much by your offensive line as by your RB. Conversely, the ceiling of your passing game is dictated by your QB. An offense with Trent Dilfer lining up under center will have a much lower ceiling than an offense with Kurt Warner. Trading away a king's ransom for one player can be a very viable strategy . . . as long as you're getting a king of a player in return. A Ricky Williams isn't worth this kind of price. But an Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning, or even a Phillip Rivers, would be.

I feel the same way. A franchise QB changes the equation for your entire team. If you look at legitimate Super Bowl contenders, just about every one of them has a bona fide franchise QB. Once you have the most valuable and hardest-to-obtain piece of the puzzle, you can build around it.

I think the Herschel Walker deal was worse, but I agree this is still a very bad trade for the Raiders! You don't give up two firsts, or a first and a second, for a guy as old as Carson Palmer! Carson Palmer was chosen first overall back in 2001. Now they're getting a very nice price for trading him away! Bearing this in mind, I decided to take a look at the value the Bills have received from their former first round picks. 2000: Erik Flowers. Result: released 2001: Nate Clements. Result: first contract and out 2002: Mike Williams. Result: released after a few years. 2003a: Drew Bledsoe. Result: released after three years 2003b: Willis McGahee. Result: traded away for two third rounders and a seventh round pick. 2004a: Lee Evans. Result: traded away for a fourth rounder. Was with the team seven years. 2004b: JP Losman. Result: released after a few years with the team. 2006a: Donte Whitner. Result: first contract and out 2006b: John McCargo. Result: released after a few years with the team 2007: Marshawn Lynch. Result: traded away for fourth and sixth round picks. At least based on trade value, Carson Palmer is worth more than all ten of those guys put together. And by a very wide margin, too! I attribute this to several factors: 1) The Raiders are overpaying for Palmer. He's old, and his play has declined. 2) The Bills have not received fair compensation for some of their departing players (like Clements). 3) There are quite a few busts on the above list of Bills' first round picks. 4) In the past, the Bills have focused their draft day resources on the wrong positions. In 2006, they could have used the eighth overall pick on Jay Cutler. Cutler was recently traded away for two first round picks; because good QBs are very valuable. Instead, the Bills squandered the eighth overall pick on a SS. Based on the contract Whitner ultimately signed, the Bills would have gotten almost nothing for him had they traded him away a year early. Likewise, the fourth and sixth round picks obtained by trading away Lynch demonstrate the relatively low value attributed to a standard-issue starting RB. The Palmer trade illustrates the benefit of picking a good player at a premium position like quarterback. (As opposed to the Bills' drafting strategy under the TD/Levy eras, which was to use first round picks on mediocre players at non-premium positions.)

I'll go along with this. The Bills had a -2 turnover differential against the Giants, and yet came very close to winning. That means there were both positives and negatives. I also agree with BmoreBills' comment about the need for game analysis, and his implication that the Bills are still an average team which will tease you at times. I'd put the defense in the negative category: it's one of the worst in the league in terms of yards. It also does a lousy job of preventing points from being scored. Until recently it made up for that with tons of turnovers. But as has been pointed out in this thread, that pace of turnover generation was unsustainable, and was not sustained against the Giants. On the credit side of the ledger I'd put anything RB-related, the Bills' WR corps (more or less), the TE and FB, and (sort of) Fitz. Also the OL isn't as bad as many feared it would be. While Fitz is a good fit for what Gailey wants to do with the Bills' offense, those who feel he's at or near the level of Rodgers, Brees, or other top tier QBs are badly mistaken. The offense needs a first round QB and a second round OL to take the next step forward. In order to become decent, the defense probably needs another defense-oriented draft. Between offense and defense, the Bills are probably two drafts away from becoming a serious threat to go to the Super Bowl. (This assumes that everything goes well, and--most importantly--that they're able to obtain a franchise QB in the next two drafts.) In the meantime, the Bills will still be an entertaining team to watch, and will fight hard every week. I intend to enjoy the ride, but not to expect too much.

I agree with this. It's better for a coach to err by being too aggressive than not aggressive enough. Bill Belichick will go for your throat if given the slightest opportunity to do so. Dick Jauron will not. It would be 20/20 hindsight to label aggressive calls as "great" whenever they work, and "lousy" when they don't. If a coach calls a lot of aggressive plays, a certain percentage will work as intended, and others won't. Overall, you will get better results by going for your opponent's throat than by playing not to lose. As you and others (including Fitz himself, in the post game show) have pointed out, it was a throw Fitz has made successfully before, and one which he should have made in that situation as well.

I listened to some of the post game interviews. Fitz took full responsibility for both his INTs. He heavily implied that the coaches and team should have been able to count on him to make throws like those. When describing why he felt the Bills lost, he repeatedly made reference to those two interceptions; adding that both were very bad throws on his part. You could tell that he felt terrible about having let the team down.

It's clearly far too early to make statements like, "Dareus will be better/worse as a DE than AJ Green is as a WR." The OP didn't make such statements, and doesn't deserve to have his post described as "beyond ridiculous." But it isn't too early to say that Dareus looks like he'll be a very special DE, just as Green looks like he'll be a very special WR. Based on that, it is reasonable to ask whether the Bills would have been better off adding a special WR or a special DE to their team. I know that most fans (including me) place a high value on having strong lines. I see this as both a) based on sound football fundamentals, and b) a reasonable response to the Bills' inadequacies on the lines, and especially the OL. Only twice in the last 40 years have the Bills used their first draft pick on an OT, as compared to 10 times for a RB, and 10 times for a DB. Drafting like that is a good way to lose football games. But even if we're right in thinking that an elite DE is more valuable than an elite WR, it's good to reexamine that (and our other opinions) from time to time just to be sure they're right. This is what the OP challenges us to do, and it's one of the reasons why football discussion boards exist in the first place. In Arizona, the Cardinals achieved a very good offense with a Hall of Fame-level QB (Kurt Warner), a very good receiving corps led by Larry Fitzgerald, and a mediocre offensive line. I maintain that the mediocre OL was a real problem, and gave defenses a ready-made way to negate the Cardinals' strengths at QB and WR. But suppose the Cardinals had been able to upgrade their OL from "mediocre" to "good, but not great." What would their offense have looked like then? If the Bills had made AJ Green into our Larry Fitzgerald and Stevie Johnson into our Anquan Boldin, the receiving corps would have been very, very good. Whenever the Bills lined up in a four WR set, it would have been very difficult for the other teams' third and fourth best DBs to match up against the Bills' third and fourth best WRs. Any DBs asked to single cover either Green or Johnson would not have laughed at the easiness of the task! Had the Bills drafted Green, they might have had a receiving corps comparable to or better than the Cardinals' WRs during the Warner era. The Bills could also have had the better OL, especially if they make a judicious addition or two in the 2012 draft. They would also have had much better RBs, in the form of Jackson and Spiller. The main downside is that Ryan Fitzpatrick isn't Kurt Warner. I personally would have chosen Dareus over Green. But passing up the chance to take Green would have been a very, very painful thing to do!

Vic Carucci said the same thing on a pre-draft radio program I listened to. He also said that the Bills would like to have taken Ponder with their second round pick, but that Ponder was very unlikely to be there for them in the second.

In answer to your question why bring this up now, I'll respond with the following. Over the last ten or more years, Bills fans (including me) have been subjected to false hopes, followed by disappointments. At least for me, the pain of learning that one's hopes were hollow outweighs the initial feeling of excitement which had been created. If someone says "Tom Donahoe," do fans remember the initial excitement most of us felt when we thought we were getting a real football guy from Pittsburgh? Or do they remember the utter futility and worthlessness of his regime? Along the same vein, throwing Drew Bledsoe's name around is more likely to cause fans to remember the mediocrity of his last 2.5 seasons than the greatness of his first eight games. If people here look at the Bills' record and the quality of some of the teams they've beaten, some might conclude that the Bills are a top-5 team. That impression would be mistaken. The Bills are probably a middle of the pack team, at least right now. That might change as some of their younger players come into their own. Let's say you'd been told that $80,000 had been set aside in an escrow account for you. In one year's time you'd be allowed to use that money to buy a new car. You're shown the legal papers, and everything is confirmed to your and your lawyer's satisfaction. Over the course of that year you spend a lot of time thinking about, reading about, and test driving $80,000 cars. But then, the day before the funds were scheduled to be released to you, you get a phone call. Something fell through. Now, only $30,000 will be available for your new car. Most people in this situation would feel bitterness or disappointment over the $80,000 car they didn't receive. Yes, they'd also feel grateful for the $30,000 car they were given. But the gratitude might be less than the disappointment. If, on the other hand, the person had expected a $30,000 car all along, the feeling of gratitude upon receiving the car would be unalloyed with either bitterness or disappointment. This is why realistic expectations are better than false hopes.

Thanks for the intelligent response. Good coaches warn against getting too high after a win, or too down after a loss. I interpret that to be a rejection of the mentality that, "we're winning, everything is fine," as well as "we're losing, so there are no positives anywhere." It's good to keep an even keel, and to be aware of a team's strengths and weaknesses regardless of its record. I'll also point out that winning does not necessarily beget winning. In 2001, Dick Jauron's Chicago Bears went 13-3. They followed that up the next season by going 4-12. He then went 7-9 the year after, which was his last year as the Bears' head coach. The reason that 13-3 record didn't lead to winning over the long term is because those wins weren't built on something sustainable. As an example of a sustainable winning method, I'd point to the 49ers of the '80s. Their bread and butter play was a quick slat to Jerry Rice. They typically ran that play several times each game, and practiced it constantly. They knew they could count on Joe Montana to throw a perfect pass, and to hit Rice in stride. They also knew they could count on Rice to make the catch, and to exploit any YAC opportunities which may have been available. More generally, I'd divide methods of winning into two categories. 1) Winning which relies on your own team being very good. (The 49ers of the '80s method.) 2) Winning which relies on the other team messing up. (For example, using a highly favorable turnover margin to compensate for your team's weaknesses in other areas.) This second method is less sustainable. Sooner or later the teams you face won't mess up.

As I see it, the two points of your post are as follows: 1) Turnovers are the result of player ability + scheme, both of which will tend to carry over from one season to the next. Therefore a strategy of creating large numbers of turnovers is sustainable. 2) Had the Bills not created so many defensive turnovers, it's possible their offensive play calling would have been more aggressive, or that their execution would have been better. These changes might have allowed them to win some of their recent games--such as the game against the Eagles--even with a neutral turnover differential. Regarding point 1), teams which achieve very good turnover differentials in a particular season tend to come back to earth in the following season. This means that very favorable turnover differentials are probably the result of a combination of sustainable factors (player ability and defensive scheme) and non-sustainable factors (luck, being in the right place at the right time). Also, if all these turnovers are because the Bills' defenders are excessively athletic, coordinated, or otherwise gifted, then why aren't they using those excessive gifts to force other teams to punt? WRT point 2), it is possible their offensive play calling or execution would have been better had they not been the recipients of so many turnovers. But it's also possible those things would have been worse! For example, maybe the turnovers lifted player morale, causing them to play better. Maybe the benefit of the turnovers discouraged the offensive coaching staff from calling excessively risky plays. There were times when I felt the Bills' offensive play calling against the Eagles was overly vanilla. Late in the game, they called run, run, pass, punt, in a situation where this sequence of play calls was fairly expected. (And was well defended against.) There's certainly room for improvement in play calling like that--but not so much room for improvement that the Bills could have won the game even without the Eagles' five turnovers.

I'll point out some differences between this Bills team and the teams you mentioned. 1) Those teams had better defenses than the Bills. There are those in this thread who've made it sound like the Bills' defense allows lots of yards, but few points. That simply isn't the case. The Patriots scored over 30 points on the Bills' defense, the Eagles scored 24, the Bengals scored 23, and the Raiders scored 35. These numbers are not the hallmark of a defense that bends but doesn't break, or that gives up tons of yards without giving up the score. This defense will often give up yards and the score . . . except when causing a turnover. 2) Just to add to point 1, the Bills' defense is (as some have pointed out), ranked in the mid-20s. That low ranking cannot be attributed to rules changes, because the rules are the same for everyone. I'll grant that rules changes have made it easier to score than ever before. But this defense has serious problems even after taking those rules changes into account. 3) Some have argued (correctly) that the way to win in today's NFL is to pass and to stop the pass. The Bills seem unable to do these things as well as the top-tier teams in the league--at least WRT the non-turnover-related aspects of the game. 4) The teams you mentioned were quarterbacked by Warner, Brees, Peyton Manning, and Aaron Rodgers. I'd argue that every quarterback on that list deserves to be a first ballot Hall of Fame player. Last season, Fitzpatrick was a clear upgrade over Edwards, but played well below the level of anyone on that list. Fitz will never be able to do the things those quarterbacks can do, because he isn't nearly an accurate a passer as they are. Back in the '70s, it was often felt a quarterback had to have elite arm strength to be elite. During the '80s, Bill Walsh designed an offense tailored to Joe Montana's abilities, thereby proving that a quarterback could be great even with a mediocre arm. Montana made up for his lack of arm strength with elite accuracy and the ability to hit receivers in perfect stride. During the first three games of the Bills' season, it appeared as though Gailey may have taken the next big step forward in offensive evolution. His quarterback--Fitzpatrick--was neither strong-armed nor overly accurate. But what Fitz did have was elite-level decision-making ability. The offense Gailey designed would spread defenses out. It called on Fitz to use that elite decision-making ability to exploit whatever defensive weaknesses this created. Fitz would use his "good enough" arm strength and accuracy and his elite decision-making to play at an elite level. However, the offense hasn't done as well these last two games as it had the first three. Maybe these last two games were an anomaly. Fitz may have been playing hurt against the Bengals, for example. Or maybe defenses are starting to catch up to Gailey's offensive scheme. Or maybe the offense looked better than it really was during those first three games due to its opponents' defensive weaknesses. I expect to have a better feel for the offense by the end of the season. But as of right now, Fitz has yet to demonstrate he can play at or near the level of Warner, Brees, Manning, or Rodgers. This being the case, it would be unwise to assume the Bills will be able to use the same model those teams used to achieve the same level of success they achieved.

I don't claim to know the answer to that question. Back in his Chicago days, Jauron achieved a 12-4 season in large part by winning the turnover battle. I'll grant there were many differences between what he did and what the Bills are doing. For example, Gailey is clearly a more innovative coach than Jauron could dream of being. Also, that Bears team was defense-oriented, whereas the Bills are currently offense-oriented. The point I'm making here is not that the two teams are mirror images of each other, because they're not. My point is that it's possible to use a very good turnover differential (among other things) to basically pull an entire good season out of one's anal cavity. Jauron has done exactly that! Maybe the Bills will succeed in doing the same thing this season. Maybe some of their younger players will improve as the season goes on, lessening the team's need to rely so heavily on turnovers. Maybe they'll go 4-12 (unlikely) or 7-9, or even 10-6. I can't really say.

I agree with the bolded statement, which is why I did not make such comparisons. If you reread my post, you'll see that I wrote the following (more or less) Year 1 of Byrd's career: a ton of interceptions, leading the Bills to get more wins than they otherwise would have had. Year 2 of Byrd's career: few if any interceptions for Byrd, leading to a 4-12 record due to the team's overall lack of talent. Year 3 of Byrd's career (this season): a ton of interceptions by the defense in general, leading to a much better record, thus far, than the team's performance in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game would warrant. Some have written that in the new NFL, the Saints are a good example to follow. They have a high powered passing offense to go with an opportunistic defense that takes risks, forces turnovers, but sometimes gives up the big play. I'll agree that the Saints model can be a successful one, as the Saints themselves demonstrated by coming away with a Super Bowl ring. However, I do not feel the Bills are (yet?) as good a team as the Saints were, on either side of the ball. In the Super Bowl, the Saints defense did generate a turnover or two. But they also showed the ability to frequently stop Peyton Manning and the Colts even without turnovers. It would be an exaggeration to say that the Bills defense will either create a turnover or allow a touchdown: always one or the other. But they certainly seem much less able to stop opposing offenses without using turnovers than the Saints had been. Fitz began the first three games of the season by playing at a higher level than had been the case last year. Even at that higher level, there were still some bad throws which an elite QB like Drew Brees would not have made. Fitz's play has seemingly taken a step downward these last two games; widening the gap between him and Brees. In a duel between gunslinger and gunslinger, the Bills will have to compensate for the fact that their gunslinger uses a significantly inferior and less accurate gun than do outlaws such as Brady. Only by creating a ton of turnovers can that disadvantage be balanced out. On the surface, the Football Outsiders article to which someone had linked seems to suggest that a team which uses a very good turnover differential to create a high DVOA rating will typically be able to sustain its success over the course of a season. However, I would have to look at the nuts and bolts of their DVOA formula before deciding whether that surface impression is accurate or misleading. I do not believe that success fostered primarily by insanely good turnover differentials will typically be sustained over multiple seasons, regardless of whether it can be made to last over the course of one season.

I know I'm going to take some flak for this, and that there will be no shortage of people willing to write comments like "we're 4-1, be happy," or "a win is a win. It doesn't matter how you do it." But a method of winning that will work over the long haul is fundamentally different from, and superior to, a method of winning that will soon fizzle out. The Bills' method of winning seems to be in the latter category. Against the I-95 teams the Bills have played thus far (Patriots and Eagles), the Bills had nine takeaways and no giveaways. And yet, despite that insane +9 turnover differential, the Bills won both games by the skin of their teeth. This means that the Bills were significantly outplayed in the non-turnover aspects of the game, and needed all of those nine turnovers to eke out wins. What happens when the Bills fail to achieve this kind of ridiculously one-sided turnover ratio? Statistically, a good turnover ratio is highly correlated with wins, for obvious reasons. But teams' turnover ratios tend to change significantly from one season to the next. Two seasons ago that worked in the Bills' favor, as there were games Byrd won almost singlehandedly. His turnovers made the Bills' record better than its talent level would otherwise have dictated. Last season Byrd's turnovers dried up, and were no longer available to mask the team's overall lack of talent. That's why the Bills went 4-12. This season the turnovers are back again and (in combination with KC's implosion) are the main pillar of Buffalo's fast start. I do not believe that attaining turnovers at this ridiculous pace is sustainable, any more than the insane pace Byrd set during his rookie year was sustainable. This should not be taken to mean that all is gloom and doom, or an implication that the team will never amount to anything. What it does mean is that Nix's rebuilding process is not as far along as the Bills' current record would seem to indicate. This team needs to play better in the non-turnover-related aspects of the game if its current success is to be sustainable. Maybe some of that can come from younger players already on the roster learning to improve. Byrd himself is a good example of this: he's playing better this year than last year. I also suspect the Bills will need at least one or two good drafts before they can truly become one of the NFL's top teams.

Good post, interspersed with a series of solid points. I cannot see a single thing you've written with which I disagree. You are correct to say that both Fitz and Freddie make the line look better than it really is; and that those who think the Bills' OL is the best in the league are seriously mistaken. I certainly wouldn't complain if the Bills used an early pick on an offensive lineman in the 2012 draft. I agree that continuity improves the quality of play of the OL. I'll add to that by saying that when a QB and his receivers and offensive coordinator are able to spend many years in the same system, it also helps.

I wouldn't go quite as far as this. I think the OP's point was that, while it was indeed a catch, a perfect receiver would have caught the ball with both hands, thereby making it 100% crystal clear to the refs that it really was a catch. He's correct to assert that Stevie isn't a perfect receiver. But then again, neither is anyone else. To me the bottom line is that Stevie did make the catch in that situation, just as he's done in plenty of other situations. He's clearly the best WR on this team. Once you start letting your draft day success stories go first-contract-and-out, you start treading water! Players like Stevie Johnson are exactly the kinds of players the Bills need to hold onto over the long-term if they're going to improve!

I woud argue the Patriots win was the biggest single win since Jim Kelly hung up his cleats. 1) The Bills have had zero postseason wins since Kelly retired, so it's not like there are a lot of postseason wins from which to choose. 2) The Bills have only been to the playoffs twice since Kelly's retirement. I don't recall any one game standing out above the others during those two playoff seasons. 3) The Lawyer Milloy Bowl was an anomaly, a flash in the pan, a gift handed to the Bills because of the Patriots' disenfranchisement at their defensive captain being cut a week before the start of the season. The recent victory over the Pats was a straight-up win. I'll take the latter over the former any day of the week, and twice on Sundays. 4) The recent win over the Pats broke a long losing streak to someone who'd dominated us for nearly a decade. You can't really say that about any of the other Bills wins in the post-Kelly era.

I'll comment on the bolded statement. It would take 22 years to build a starting lineup with first round picks only. Clearly that's an impossibility. Building a good team can't be done in the first round alone: you also need some good players from rounds 2 - 7. The Patriots have a sixth round pick as their starting quarterback. Does this mean that the position of QB is unimportant, and that teams should seek to use their early picks on non-QBs? Of course not! That would be absurd! What it does mean is that the Patriots happened to find a very good player outside of round 1--like you need to do to build a good team. There are five starting offensive linemen out of 22 starters. You'd expect five out of every 22 late round success stories to be offensive linemen. As Kyle Williams, Fred Jackson, and Stevie Johnson would be happy to tell you, late round and UDFA success stories can be found at every starting position. The fact that some of those success stories happen to be offensive linemen doesn't mean either a) that the OL is unimportant, or b) that it should be de-valued on draft day. On the contrary, if you have a need at some difficult-to-fill position on the OL (such as OT), and if the player you need is waiting for you with your first or second round pick, your inclination should be to pull the trigger. (Unless there is some other player who would add even more value to your team.) The combination of a good QB with a good OL is deadly. What do you think is likely to happen when a QB like Kurt Warner or Tom Brady is given all day to throw? Unless the defense rushed three and dropped eight into coverage, an elite QB having all day to throw generally equates to the defense getting carved up and eaten like a Thanksgiving turkey. A good OL without a good quarterback is far less impressive: the Ravens of 2000 went five straight games without scoring an offensive touchdown, despite having a Hall of Fame-level LT in the form of Jon Ogden. Pass protection is a weapon, and a quarterback like Aaron Rodgers or Drew Brees will receive much more benefit from being given that weapon than will Trent Dilfer or Tony Banks. Obviously you can't have an elite offense without a very good or elite quarterback. But think about things from the opposite perspective. When you think about ways to stop an elite quarterback, what's the first thing which typically comes to mind? For most people the answer to that question is a good pass rush. If your offensive line is second- or third-rate, you make it easy for defensive coordinators to use a good pass rush to stop your elite quarterback. Why on earth would you want to do that? Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used their first pick in the draft on a RB ten different times. There were also ten different times when their first draft pick was used on a DB. They have never used their first draft pick on a QB, and only twice have used it on an OT. This means that the Bills have generally failed to avail themselves of the powerful good QB + good OL combination. This failure is a big reason why, over its history, the team has lost many more games than it has won.

I would strongly prefer a rule like this to the tuck rule.

I can't disagree with your assessment of the play or of Maybin's abilities. That said, one of the things which struck me about the play was how fast Maybin looked! I realize that when a player is as ridiculously undersized as he is, you expect him to be fast. But still. I have to give Maybin credit for that speed. Part of me wonders what might have been, had Maybin been able to offer more than just that speed and the huge loops around the formation which you'd mentioned.

The Founding Fathers felt that the ideal American was the gentleman farmer. A gentleman farmer--or any kind of farmer, for that matter--is less vulnerable to financially-based pressures towards conformism than are people in most other industries. The percentage of Americans whose main income source involves farming their own land has declined radically since the Founding Fathers' time. This is why there is more financially-based pressure toward conformism than ever before. One result of this conformist pressure is non-heartfelt apologies, intended to appease the anger of those who pull the financial strings of our society.