Orton's Arm

You've made a number of bad points in your post (as well as one good one). You seem to be using the Randy Moss example to imply that a later draft pick is just as valuable as an earlier one. That is, of course, wrong, as any GM will be happy to tell you. Your comment about franchise mode was of course nonsensical. But you did make a good point about how a GM will get fired if he loses too many games. Nix is still in his honeymoon period, and can afford to lose some games. But I agree that if he goes 1-15 in year 2 or 3 of the rebuilding program, his job would be in serious jeopardy.

I completely agree. I've got nothing against Jake Long, who's a very good football player. But if you don't have a franchise QB and there's a chance to get one, you take him. Period.

Wanting what's best for the team in the long-run (as I do) does not make me less of a fan than someone who wants what's best for the team over the short-term, while completely ignoring the long-run (as you do). You are basing your positions on emotion (the pain of watching the Bills lose on Sundays), instead of thinking in terms of a logical, concrete plan to get the Bills the elite players absolutely necessary for long-term success. Your statement about the Patriots drafting 20 -25 each year is incorrect. One year the Patriots traded away two picks later on in the first round in order to obtain a top-10 pick. Another year they traded away their first round pick that year for San Francisco's first rounder in next year's draft. (The theory was that the 49ers' pick would be higher up in the draft.) The Patriots have also traded away various players over the years for first rounders: Drew Bledsoe comes to mind, but there have been others as well. If you feel Nix is a good GM, you should want him to have picks as good as possible in order to gather talent quickly. That means losing games. But since you feel otherwise; you should also want the Bills to lose a lot of games; in order to get Nix fired as quickly as possible. In neither case would it help the team to pile up a bunch of meaningless wins.

You are thinking like a player when you should be thinking like a general manager. Suppose that in 1997 the Colts had gone 7-9. (Instead of the 1-15 record they actually complied.) Peyton Manning would be a member of some other team. The Colts wouldn't have earned that Super Bowl ring. Games are won or lost by the players, and your best players are acquired primarily through the draft.

His post was intended as sarcasm. This is his way of (again) attempting to heap ridicule on those who would like to see the Bills lose games in order to draft Luck. The reason the Senator feels the need to ridicule those with that opinion is because he'd prefer to see the Bills pile up meaningless wins this season, instead of attaining high draft position. Thus far, I have not seen him articulate a cogent reason why he thinks meaningless wins are somehow better than adding elite-level talent through early draft picks. But he's attempting to make up for his absence of a logical point through sheer repetition.

Last year Carolina attempted to trade up in the second round in order to get Clausen. They were unable to, and were delighted when he fell down to them. From everything I've heard, they were 100% sold on the guy. I realize feelings can change, but there's a good chance that a lot of that initial confidence remains. You are correct to say that if Carolina has the first overall pick and is sold on Clausen, they'll seek to trade down. But if the Bills are picking (say) third overall, and if they want Luck, they'd be a potential trading partner for Carolina. I realize that you're going to have to give up a lot (in terms of picks) to trade from #3 overall to #1 overall, especially with a player like Luck on the board. But from everything I've gathered, Luck could be the next Matt Ryan, except better. It's worth paying a high draft day price to get a player like that.

Good call. I just looked it up, and the press conference occurred in 2001. Manning was drafted in '98.

You'll recall that the Panthers took Clausen in the second round of last year's draft. Just because everyone on these boards is writing him off after a few bad games, doesn't mean the Panthers' front office has decided to do the same. Rookie quarterbacks often take time to develop. One of Peyton Manning's rookie performances prompted . Assuming the Panthers don't decide to give up on Clausen after just one year, the Bills should be okay even if they win a game. That said, I admit I don't like the idea of risking so much (Luck) on the decision-making process of some other team (Panthers).

This team needs real difference-makers. Having very early draft picks is the best way to get them! If the Bills pick first overall and Luck declares, they should grab Luck. Obviously. If Luck doesn't declare, I assure you there will be some other elite difference-maker available for them to take first overall.

Maybe Maybin and McCargo can find their way to Seattle too!

I don't think anyone would argue with the fact that the Bills' offense is a lot better coached this year than it was last year. Look at all the points they put up against the Ravens, not to mention other teams! Instead of being predictable, uncreative, and unproductive, the Bills offense now looks like it's being run by a real coaching staff! A very good real coaching staff. Then there's the defense. Part of the reason for the defense's decline is the fact that it lost its best/only pass rusher. The fact that Stroud and others are getting on in years doesn't help either. There have been injuries to guys like Mitchell and McGee. It also doesn't help that the defensive personnel were selected for the Tampa-2, which the Bills are no longer running. I'll grant all that. But the fact is that in Jauron's first year here, he was able to compile a 7-9 record while facing similar problems; and he did so largely on the strength of his defense. The current quality of the Bills' defensive coaching appears to be very low, and is a significant step back from what we saw under Jauron's regime. On a related note, the best defensive coordinator the Bills have had in decades--possibly ever--is currently looking for work. The 3-4 is a very good defensive scheme when implemented correctly. Wade Phillips knows how to do exactly that!

His reasoning is that the Panthers took Clausen last year. While some fans might be willing to give up on Clausen after his slow rookie start, the Panthers may see the situation differently. As for the Bills: his feeling is that Fitzpatrick might be the long-term answer. I don't think he's right about that, but I'm not 100% certain.

I am probably making a mistake by replying to you at all. Every word you've written has indicated you have no interest in any sort of reasonable discussion. You label those who disagree with you "moronic," and refuse to read longer posts that present information inconsistent with your preconceived, incorrect notions. Your approach to this discussion has been pure arrogance completely unsupported by intellectual rigor. But just to make the record clear, my initial post contended that a pick early in the first round is worth more than a pick later on in the first round. The premise that a good GM can do as much with a later pick as he could have done with an earlier pick is clearly and demonstrably wrong. Bill Polian is a good GM who's been around for a long time, and has worked for three different teams. During those years, he's had four picks in the top-5, and nine picks in slots 21 - 32. And yet, he acquired significantly more talent with that small number of top-5 picks than he did with the much larger number of picks later in the first round. Do you really need a detailed explanation as to why that example supports the premise that an early pick is worth more than a later pick? I do not expect you to respond to that point--or any other--with intelligent, rational debate. Rather, you will engage in more name-calling, and more arrogance and snide remarks directed against anyone who dares disagree with you. Your parents obviously failed to teach you the basic rudiments of common courtesy, and I certainly do not hope to succeed where they so clearly failed. Continue in the tone you've adopted, but note that I and others will think less of you because of it.

Thanks Steve! I appreciate this.

You're right: I probably underrated both Edgerrin James and Henry Jones. I agree with you about both Fina and Whitner. I remember a Bills official--I think it was Marv--mentioning that the Bills employed a service which rates the performance of the players on their roster. According to them, Fina was about the 25th best starting LT in the league. (I don't remember the exact rank.) After adjusting the player rankings a bit, the central point of my earlier post remains. Bill Polian achieved more with his very early first round picks (Bruce Smith, Kerry Collins, Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James) than he did with picks later in the first (Henry Jones, John Fina, Tyrone Poole, Rob Morris, Reggie Wayne, Dallas Clark, Marlon Jackson, Joseph Addai, Anthony Gonzalez). Bill Polian had more than twice as many picks (nine) in the second category than in the first (four). Over the course of Bill Polian's career, a typical top-5 pick has proved more than twice as valuable as a pick in the lower part of the first round.

Your post makes no serious attempt to address the points I raised. Unless, of course, you were using the Mike Williams example in an attempt to show that a top-5 pick is no more likely to become an elite difference-maker than a top-20 pick. If that's the point you were trying to convey, you are simply and wholly wrong. Let's look at Bill Polian as an example of this. Below are the first round picks for which he was responsible Top-5 picks Bruce Smith, 1st overall, 1985. Result: First ballot Hall of Fame. Kerry Collins, 5th overall, 1995. Result: Decent player. Peyton Manning, 1st overall, 1998. Result: First ballot Hall of Fame. Edgerrin James, 4th overall, 1999. Result: Good player. Picks 6- 10 Shane Conlan, LB, 8th overall, 1987. Result: Pro Bowl player. Timanga Biakabatuka, 8th overall, 1996. Result: near bust. Picks 11 - 20 Derrick Burroughs, DB, 14th overall, 1985. Result: Bust. Ronnie Harmon, RB, 16th overall, 1986. Result: Bust. Will Wolford, LT, 20th overall, 1968. Result: Pro Bowl player. James Williams, 16th overall, DB, 1990. Result: Bust. Dwight Freeny, 11th overall, 2002. Result: Pro Bowl player. Picks 21 - 32 Henry Jones, 26th overall, 1991. Result: a semi-decent player. John Fina, 27th overall, 1992. Result: a semi-decent player. Tyrone Poole, 22nd overall, 1995. Result: a decent player. Rob Morris, LB, 28th overall, 2000. Result: a decent player. Reggie Wayne, 30th overall, 2001. Result: a Pro Bowl player. Dallas Clark, 24th overall, 2003. Result: a very good player. Marlin Jackson, 29th overall, 2004. Result: bust Joseph Addai, 30th overall, 2006. Result: a solid player. Anthony Gonzalez, WR, 32nd overall, 2007. Result: bust Bill Polian has picked in the top-5 on four separate occasions. In two cases (both picking first overall) he came away with some of the best players in NFL history: Bruce Smith and Peyton Manning. His worst top-5 pick was Kerry Collins (5th overall), and even he had a decent career. Conversely, Polian has picked in the 21 - 32 range on nine separate occasions. His two best players from those nine picks were Reggie Wayne and Dallas Clark. He also acquired players like Joseph Addai, Henry Jones, John Fina, Tyrone Poole, and Rob Morris (in addition to some busts). But I would argue that Polian acquired significantly more value from his top-5 picks (Bruce Smith, Peyton Manning, Edgerrin James, and Kerry Collins) than he did from his picks in the 21 - 32 range. This, despite the fact that he had only four picks in the top-5, but had nine picks from 21 - 32. Contrary to the misinformed opinions of some on these boards, the NFL's draft day value chart exists for a reason. A top-5 pick is more valuable than a pick later on in the first round. A good GM like Polian does not have some magic wand to make that fact go away. If Polian is picking 32nd overall, and if the players he wanted the most were taken before he had a chance to pick, he's going to have to content himself with his second- or third tier of choices. Over the long haul, that's going to hurt him, as the above drafting record clearly indicates.

This team is 0-8 for a number of reasons, one of the most important of which is a lack of talent. The main way of adding talent is through the draft. A pick early in the first round is worth more than a pick later in the first. Getting early draft picks is a good way for the Bills to solve their underlying problem (lack of talent) rather than merely masking its symptoms (by getting a few meaningless wins). An 0-16 or 1-15 record gets us a better, more valuable pick than the 8-8 record for which you are rooting. The first overall pick is worth 3000 points; the 16th overall pick is worth just 1000 points. Your proposed strategy would gut 2/3 of the value of the Bills' first round pick in exchange for eight meaningless wins. You'd also be reducing the value of the Bills' picks in rounds 2 - 7, albeit to a lesser degree. If the Bills go 0-16 this year, two things would have to happen for the Bills to miss out on Luck. First, he'd have to wait a year before entering the NFL draft. That is far from being a certainty, especially considering the very real possibility of a new, much lower rookie cap. Secondly, the labor dispute would have to get resolved quickly enough to allow football in 2011. That too is very far from being a certainty! But even if both those things happen, an 0-16 or 1-15 record still gets the Bills an opportunity to draft a front seven player very early! The last time the Bills took a front seven player first overall, he turned out to be Bruce Smith. More generally, you'd expect a player taken in the top-5 of the draft to be an elite difference-maker, which is exactly what this team needs!

I just want to know what everyone thinks. For those who envision an early pick like Luck or Mallett, also take into account the non-QB player you won't be able to draft due to using that top-5 pick on a QB!

On the other hand, a Bears win pushes the Bills one step closer to getting some Luck. If there's no football next year, losing games will help us two years in a row!

So instead of spending $1.2 million a year on Wake, the Bills are spending $3 million a year on Cornell Green, more than that each year on Kelsay . . .

That would explain the Redskins' messed-up personnel moves lately.

From Wikipedia:

Shanahan the coach is worlds better than Shanahan the GM. (Not that he's the GM in Washington though.)

Losman did well by throwing the ball deep, until teams realized that when you face Losman, you double cover Evans and force him to beat you with the underneath stuff. Trent did well with the short game until teams realized that when you face him, you take away the short stuff and force him to beat you deep. Trent Edwards has averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Losman has averaged 6.6 yards per attempt. This Bills released both quarterbacks outright, which strongly suggests no one else was interested in trading for them. I got the sense that in press conferences, both quarterbacks were focused on saying the politically correct thing and not making waves. I don't see why you feel Losman is more of a man than Trent. Neither quarterback is a manly leader like Kelly. Both quarterbacks have shown toughness by taking a ton of punishment behind a porous Bills line. Both have missed significant time due to injuries. But a lot of quarterbacks would have gotten injured playing behind a line like that! I'll grant that Losman took more risks on the field than Edwards did. But for all we know, Jauron and the Bills' coaching staff instructed Edwards to avoid taking risks. Perhaps they told Edwards that Losman had been benched for taking too many risks. I don't really see how you can blame a player for doing what his coaches have told him to do. Edwards only had two games under a non-Jauron/van Pelt coaching staff, and he didn't get any pass protection at all in either game. When you're not getting protected, you're not going to be able to wait for the deep game to open up. I'm not trying to justify Trent's playing style. It was obvious that neither he nor Losman had a very good idea about what was going on out there. They made up for that lack of awareness in different ways: Trent by focusing on dump-offs, Losman by locking onto his primary target. Fitz, on the other hand, has a much better sense of what's going on; so he can take the right risks, while avoiding the wrong ones.

Thanks for the compliments! In response to your first point, my initial reaction when reading about the ESPN rankings was much the same as yours. Having the 30th best Super Bowl performance out of about 40 - 44 Super Bowls total didn't seem all that impressive. Then I remembered that ESPN almost certainly evaluated the performances of both teams' QBs. So Hostetler's rank was 30th out of 80 - 88 or so.