Orton's Arm

Whitner was given the opportunity for a contract extension. Instead he chose to hit free agency. He cleaned out his locker, thinking the other teams in the league would line up to pay him elite safety money. Obviously that hasn't happened. If a guy signs an extension for below his market value, that's loyalty. Clearly Whitner hasn't given us that. Right now he's an out of work safety offering the Bills the opportunity to . . . pay more money for him than would any other team in the league? Forgive me if this doesn't make me all gooey and misty-eyed with gratitude. Any offer to Whitner should be based on cold logic, not on emotion. Adding Whitner wouldn't upgrade the quality of the Bills' starting safeties, and it's not like we need more bodies for depth. He'd provide a lot more value to some other team--a team that needs help at safety. One of two things will happen. 1) Teams in need of safeties will make a strong push to sign Whitner. If this is the case, I assume those teams will outbid the Bills for Whitner's services. He's worth a lot more to a team which needs a safety than to the Bills. 2) Teams that need safeties will decide Whitner isn't the answer they're looking for. If they don't want him, why should we? Either way, I just don't see how it could make sense to bring him back.

Whitner is a solid player, and I couldn't care less about his tweets. But my guess is that the Bills have moved on. If their starting lineup at safety is George Wilson and Jairus Byrd, and their depth at the position is Bryan Scott and Searcy, where in that equation would Whitner fit? They don't need more depth players at safety, and Wilson's pass coverage is better than Whitner's.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you're right, and that Orakpo and Ngata would have been of roughly equal value to the Bills. The question we then have to ask ourselves is, would either player be as valuable as Jay Cutler? If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's one available to be drafted, you take him. Period. The question is, is Jay Cutler a franchise quarterback? To me, the best single statistical measure of a quarterback's success is yards per attempt. A QB with a career average yards per attempt of 7.2 may or may not be considered franchise, while one with a career average of 7.4 yards per attempt or more is definitely franchise, no questions asked. 7.4 yards per attempt is a high standard--Tom Brady's career average is 7.4 yards per attempt, and Peyton Manning's average is 7.6 yards per attempt. Jay Cutler's career average is 7.2 yards per attempt, which puts him in borderline franchise QB territory. This past season he averaged 7.4 yards per attempt. This is all the more impressive when you consider that he played without an offensive line. When Denver traded him away, they received two first rounders, plus Kyle Orton, in return. I recall reading that Chicago wasn't the only team willing to part with two first rounders for Cutler. But they were the only team willing or able to throw in a QB which Denver liked as much as they liked Kyle Orton. If Orakpo or Ngata were to be traded away, how would their trade values compare to what Denver received for Cutler? You could argue that the Bills should have taken Cutler 8th overall. (In fact, that's precisely what I did argue leading up to the 2006 draft! ) Had they done so, they could have either a) used Cutler as their long-term answer at QB, or b) trade Cutler away for some really juicy draft picks. Two first rounders + Kyle Orton for Cutler is worlds better than a fourth and sixth rounder for Marshawn Lynch, or first-contract-and-out for Whitner and Poz! The Whitner pick cost us Cutler, and the Maybin pick cost us Orakpo. I'd argue that the pain of losing Cutler is even worse than the pain of losing Orakpo.

I think that you, Bill, and I agree that Whitner is a better football player than Maybin. But the Whitner pick could still be worse than the Maybin pick. To illustrate: Scenario 1: a GM has to choose between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf. He chooses Leaf. Scenario 2: a GM has to choose between Trent Dilfer and Ryan Leaf. He chooses Leaf. What Bill is saying is that Scenario 1 represents a much worse decision on the GM's part than Scenario 2. Bill isn't just looking at the quality of player the GM got. He's also looking at the quality of player the GM should have had. Picking Whitner 8th overall meant that we lost out on Cutler or Ngata. Arguably, that's significantly worse than the pain of losing out on whichever player we should have chosen with the Maybin pick.

I agree he's a reasonably solid NFL player who gives his all. I also think his tweets have been blown out of proportion, and play far too large a role in a lot of people's thinking. On the other hand, I'm not sure I see a fit. If George Wilson is better than Whitner in pass coverage, why should Wilson sit on the bench while Whitner is on the field? But if it's going to be Whitner on the bench, would it really make sense for the Bills to sign an expensive backup safety when they already have pretty good depth at the position? If you think the Bills should re-sign Whitner, what role would you envision for him? Should he be a starter or a backup? If a starter, how do you feel he compares to George Wilson in terms of pass coverage and run stopping? If you envision Whitner as a backup, what other backup safety would you get rid of to make room for him? How many safeties would you envision the Bills keeping, and which safeties would they be? I realize this is a lot of questions. But these are questions the Bills will need to answer before deciding whether to make another offer to Whitner. (Assuming, of course, that that decision hasn't already been made.)

Whitner's strength is his run stopping ability. If teams run at us less often, that deemphasizes the thing he does best. George Wilson is better than Whitner in pass coverage, so he's the guy I'd want on the field if teams start passing more. Even without Whitner, the Bills have pretty good depth at safety. A starting tandem of George Wilson and Jairus Byrd could be backed up by Scott and Searcy. If Whitner can't crack the starting lineup, and if the Bills are satisfied with the depth they have at safety, Whitner may not be a good fit. Surely there must be some other team which lacks a starting caliber SS. Whitner would represent a significant upgrade for that team, and perhaps should sign with them.

In some ways he could be a perfect addition for the Bills. Let's say, hypothetically speaking, that his knee prevents him from playing in 2011. He could spend the year on IR while learning the system. Suppose the Bills lose a lot of games, in part because of guys like Carey not being able to play. Then, going into the 2012 draft, they'd have a very early draft pick. A pick which could be used on a franchise QB. Then in 2012 Carey comes back from his injury, and becomes an important piece of the Bills' OL. Of course, the above is a best-case scenario.

You might be right about this. One way to rate players is in terms of trade value. For example, Lynch netted the Bills just a fourth rounder plus change during the prime of his career, so you could safely say that 95% or more of the value of the 12th overall pick used on him had been lost. Obviously Maybin would net the Bills exactly zero in any kind of trade. But if Whitner was still under contract, it's hard to imagine other teams lining up to trade away first or second rounders for him either. At best you're looking at a third round pick for him, and that's probably a bit optimistic. The Bills should have done one of three things with the pick used on Whitner: 1) Draft Jay Cutler, 2) Accept one of the generous trade offers you mentioned, 3) draft Ngata. Cutler turned out to be worth two first round draft picks, plus Kyle Orton, in a trade. Ngata is an excellent defensive lineman! Trading down would have allowed the Bills to take the best center in the league, Mangold. (Which they could have done anyway with the McCargo pick.) My sense is that the 8th overall pick used on Whitner may have represented a much larger wasted opportunity than the 11th overall pick used on Maybin. If that's true, you could argue the Whitner pick was worse, even though he's clearly a better football player than Maybin.

Back problems tend to take time to heal. If he's failed a physical this close to the start of the season, you have to assume he'll spend year 1 of any given contract on injured reserve. That shouldn't necessarily stop the Bills from signing Gaither, any more than injury problems stopped them from signing Merriman. If the Bills' medical experts feel that Gaither can return to the field in 2012, they should consider signing him to a deal similar to the one you suggested. Except that the first year of the deal should only pay $1 million. There's no sense in paying more than that for a player to inhabit injured reserve for a year. Years 2 - 4 of the deal should include a significant salary increase, with the understanding that the Bills will release him if his back problems don't improve.

Over the last 40 years, there have been 10 instances in which the Bills used their first pick in the draft on a DB. Another ten times--including nine first rounders--the Bills used their first draft pick on a RB. The Bills have never used their first pick of the draft on a QB, and only twice have used their first pick of the draft on an OT. RBs typically have short careers, while first round DBs drafted by the Bills tend to go first-contract-and-out. For the Bills to focus their best draft picks on RBs and DBs to the exclusion of QBs and OTs illustrates the short-sightedness and lack of strategic vision we have come to expect from this franchise.

I don't recall the exact period of analysis, so don't quote me on this. But I'm reasonably certain the period of time they examined was somewhere between one year and five years long--certainly not longer than that. The analysis itself seemed like a fairly standard-issue multiple linear regression analysis. That being said, I have to compliment the author of the piece for writing something which a) had no obvious errors or logical fallacies, and b) which contained some insightful statements about cause and effect and correlation. One of the things I found interesting about the model was that it explained 80% of the variation in teams' winning percentages, even though it didn't account for special teams. This means that at most variation in special teams play explains 20% of differences in winning percentage, and very probably less. So when Marv says that special teams is 1/3 of the game, he's wrong! (Not that this is the only thing about which Marv has been wrong!)

Before Maybin has a breakout year he first needs to be sent to prison.

One possible definition of "better player" is "a player who's more able to help your team win games." Using that as a definition, the best QB ever is a better player than the best punter ever, because good quarterbacking is more important than good punting. Another possible definition of "better player" would be "demonstrates a higher level of play at his position." Using this definition, the best punter ever might be roughly as good as the best quarterback ever. Using this second definition, one could say that Whitner and Wilson are about equal as players. But using the first definition, Wilson is clearly a step above Whitner.

I agree with your assessment that Wilson is better against the pass, and Whitner is better against the run. According to a multiple regression study performed by The New York Times, an improvement in pass defense is three times as effective as an analogous improvement in run defense. When the effect of increased interceptions is added in, the margin increases to 4-to-1. If George Wilson is a 50 out of 100 in run defense and a 70 out of 100 in pass defense, and if Whitner is the reverse of that, then Wilson is the significantly better player. Edit: Read the following only if you're interested in statistics speak. The dependent variable of the New York Times' multiple regression analysis was a team's number of wins. Collectively, the independent variables explained 80% of the observed variation in the dependent variable. The independent variables included average yards per pass play (offense), average yards per pass play (defense), average yards per running play (offense), average yards per running play (defense), average INTs per game (offense), average INTs per game (defense). A one standard deviation improvement in your team's average yards per pass play (offense or defense) was three times as effective as a one SD improvement in your team's average yards per running play (offense or defense). A one SD improvement in your team's interception rate (offense or defense) was as effective in producing more wins as a one SD improvement in your team's average yards per running play (offense or defense).

This.

Thanks.

On the radio they said that Poz felt he was a much better fit for a 4-3 defense than a 3-4. Assuming his self-assessment is accurate, there's a chance the Jags were willing to pay considerably more for him than the Bills. If you know a guy is only going to be decent in the system you're running, why offer him more than just a decent salary?

The Bills have decent talent at safety either with or without Whitner. George Wilson is better in pass coverage than Whitner, and we also have Scott, Byrd, and that rookie we took in the fourth round. (Can't remember his name.) If Whitner was a member of the Rams or Bucs or some other random team, and if he'd just become a free agent, I don't think there would be much conversation about the Bills signing him. Why spend a ton of money at SS in order to get a partial upgrade (in run support) and a partial downgrade (in pass coverage), when that money could just as easily be used on a full upgrade at some other position instead?

Based on your observations, how do you think Colon would perform if the Bills made him their starting RT?

That 1st overall pick back in '85 turned into Bruce Smith. How much have the Bills achieved since Bruce hung up his cleats? Maybe it's the Bills, and not the OP, that need to modify their draft strategy. It's not exactly as though the last 15 years have been a resounding success.

I know I'm not the OP, but deliberately avoiding stopgaps and bandaids in an effort to get Andrew Luck would be a move of which I'd approve. A franchise QB like Luck would help the team immensely, for many years to come. Right now, the Bills should be trying to add core players--guys who will be key contributors for many years to come. They shouldn't be adding stopgaps--guys who will only give a few years before retiring. Stopgap players would do nothing to fix the team's lack of talent over the long term, while presumably costing the team draft position. For the Bills to be a top-10 team, they need their most recent draft to have been a very good one, and they need to have a great draft in 2012, starting with a franchise QB in round 1. If both those things happen, then in 2013 you might start to see the Bills become a serious threat, as the rookies added in 2011 and 2012 have time to mature.

It's going to be harder than usual for rookies to make the final roster cut because of the lockout and shortened training camps. That said, I think Jasper will make the final roster. I don't think the Bills will make the mistake of trying to hide him on the practice squad. A guy who weighs 370 pounds isn't very easy to hide!

Your post shows a disturbing level of conventional thinking. The Bills are basement dwellers in their own division. If they're going to escape, they'll have to think outside the box. They need to pursue high risk/high reward options. So why not have everyone on the team wear hockey skates for the opener? Regarding Vince Young, I agree that signing him would be ridiculous.

I hadn't been aware of the information you and Kelly pointed out. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This significantly and positively influences my opinion of Demaurice Smith. I still don't agree with a lot of what comes out of his mouth, but at least he hasn't been the one-dimensional negotiator, who's focused on the salary cap to the exclusion of all else, that I'd thought he was.

I don't have cable, and only use my television to watch DVDs. I've never seen Demaurice Smith on television. My negative impression of him is based on two things: 1) a lot of what he's said strikes me as misleading and deceptive. 2) I've seen no evidence to suggest he's looking for very many win-wins. As an example of 2), why not push for a higher minimum player salary? That would be no skin off the owners' noses as long as the salary cap was not raised, and would help a lot more players than it hurt. An increase in salary of $100,000 a year would do a lot more to help some minimum wage player who's only in the league for 2 - 3 years than a decrease in salary of $100,000 a year would do to hurt Peyton Manning. But Demaurice Smith has not (to my knowledge) pushed for an increase in the minimum salary. Another thing which he could be doing is to push for changes to reduce brain trauma. An article I read suggested a lot of brain trauma is caused by the way practices are conducted. Why not campaign to have practices changed? Why not campaign for changes to equipment and the rules set in ways intended to reduce brain trauma? That would be a huge help to the players he's supposed to be representing, but he's done nothing. Except, of course, for using brain trauma as yet another argument for a higher salary cap. He argues players deserve more compensation for their brain trauma. On the surface that argument may seem to make sense. But a higher salary cap does nothing for players making the minimum wage. Those guys take a lot of hard hits on special teams--plenty of brain trauma there--and they're the ones currently receiving the least compensation for their brain trauma. A high salary cap is most beneficial for the star players in the league--Peyton Manning and Tom Brady and so forth. Players in that category are already overcompensated for their brain trauma, so there's no need to try to raise their compensation still further. To the best of my knowledge, Demaurice Smith has been singing only one song: which is that the salary cap should be as high as possible. He's done nothing to help the men he's supposed to represent beyond his constant push on that one issue. For the good of the league the salary cap needs to be reduced, and it's become clear the owners are determined to make that happen. Instead of digging himself in on that one issue--while ignoring everything else--he should have been willing to offer the owners concessions on the salary cap and on the rookie wage scale in exchange for meaningful action on brain trauma and an increase in the minimum salary. Had he done these things, he would have been part of the solution. Instead, he's acted like a man determined to be part of the problem. (The problem here being a salary cap that's clearly too high.)