Orton's Arm

This

I'll begin by responding to your bolded statement. Peyton Manning was selected first overall in the 1998 draft. If you look at the Bills' draft picks from 1998 through 2006, and determine which ones are still with the team, you have the following: Chris Kelsay (2nd round, 2003) Terrence McGee (4th round, 2003) Lee Evans (1st round, 2004) Roscoe Parrish (2nd round, 2005) Donte Whitner (1st round, 2006) John McCargo (1st round, 2006) Ashton Youboty (3rd round, 2006) Kyle Williams (5th round, 2006) Keith Ellison (6th round, 2006) One could argue that over the next few years, Manning will be worth more than all the players on that list put together. That is largely because the Bills have been bad at drafting. It's also because some players drafted during that span (such as Schobel) contributed at a high level for a long time, and then retired. Other drafted players, like Nate Clements, were allowed to leave via free agency. But the point remains that the value of a Manning-scale draft-day success story is stupendous, and is difficult to overstate. One of the reasons why some people (including me) wouldn't mind seeing the Bills go 1-15 for the 2010 season is because getting that first overall pick (as the Colts did for Manning) can be monumental in determining the direction of the franchise for the next ten or more years. The objective with all this should be to find the right quarterback, and then to do whatever you have to do to get him on your roster. That might mean trading up (as TD unsuccessfully tried to do with Roethlisberger), it might mean passing up a franchise player at some other position (as Parcells should have done when he had to choose between Long and Ryan), and it might mean going 1-15 or 2-14. A note on that last point: you obviously don't want your players playing to loose. Football is a tough sport, and playing to loose just breeds mental softness. It's hard to come back from that. But if the general manager decides to go 1-15 during his first year, there are things he can do to prevent the team from having the short-term stopgaps it would need to increase its win total. You wouldn't sign a Chad Pennington, for example, because a player like that will dramatically increase your win total in year 1 and maybe even year 2 of the rebuilding program; while doing nothing to help your team long-term. (Too close to retirement.) Focusing your team's resources, with laser-like precision, on the right quarterback, requires a talented, disciplined, wise front office and scouting staff. The teams that tend to pick the best QBs de-emphasize physical traits, while emphasizing accuracy, ability to see the field/multiple reads quickly, and other mental traits. One quarterback in that category is Ponder. If I were the Bills, I'd make it my #1 goal to acquire him in the 2011 draft.

The rings are relevant to a discussion of his ability as a head coach. They have no bearing on a discussion of his performance as a GM. In nine seasons as GM, Parcells has led his teams to exactly one playoff win. That win occurred during his second year with the Jets. The following season, the Jets finished 8-8 and out of the playoffs. Parcells retired from the Jets after that. One playoff win over nine years of GM-ing may seem great by the standards that we're used to, but that track record isn't up to the standards of the Scott Piolis and Bill Polians of the league.

Thanks. I appreciated hearing this a lot. It's nice to know that people appreciate the thought and effort I put into my better posts on this board. The same goes for you, Bill from NYC.

Parcells has had three GM positions: with the Jets, Cowboys, and Dolphins. During Parcells' time with the Jets, that team finished 9-7, 12-4, and 8-8. During Parcells' time as the Cowboys' GM/head coach, they finished 10-6, 6-10, 9-7, and 9-7. In two seasons as the Dolphins' GM, Parcells has gone 11-5 and 7-9. During Parcells' first year as GM (for all three teams combined), his teams have averaged ten wins a season. During Parcells' subsequent years as GM, his teams have averaged 8.5 wins a season. At least based on the limited data available, it would appear Parcells qua GM is better at creating a dramatic improvement in year one of his tenure, than he is at sustaining and building on the initial improvement. If an NFL team is to play at a high level over the course of a number of years, it will typically be because it has done a good job of assembling a good group of core players. Then you use free agency and lower draft picks to fill in the holes. Parcells' inability to achieve first-rate results over a sustained period of time suggests that his first-year successes have not primarily come from building a core of good, young football players. Instead, those first year improvements have come as a result of acquiring aging veterans who can still play well (such as Chad Pennington), large numbers of second-rate players who were better than the second-rate players they replaced, and a few core players. There's nothing wrong with any of that in and of itself. It's the inability to do an above-average job of building the core of the team over the long-term that's the problem.

Free speech works both ways: just as the fans have the right to heckle, the team has the right to sign (or in this case) not sign autographs. So I think the tactic is fair. Like you, I'm not thrilled about the idea of punishing the good fans in that section along with the bad. But I can still see the logic. Gailey wanted to make a statement that he'd stand up for his players, and that some forms of fan behavior are not appropriate. Both statements needed to be made. As others pointed out, heckling Trent in practice is as classless as bothering someone while at work. Regardless of whether Trent is or isn't the long-term answer at QB--and I think he probably isn't--fans just shouldn't do that. Maybe next time, there will be more peer pressure from other fans directed against hecklers. (Which was probably one of Gailey's objectives in punishing the whole section.)

It didn't always work out that well for him. There were times when he'd bring in guys who'd been good a few years ago, but were clearly nearing the ends of their useful careers.

A good point about the people who don't want a new window or tab. That said, I'm still not 100% convinced the W3C should have deprecated that tag. I'd like to see web developers retain the option of having links open in new tabs by default. But I realize there's nothing TBD or those who created the new board software can reasonably do about the situation until or unless the W3C changes its stance. For those not familiar with this sort of thing: the Word Wide Web Consortium--the W3C for short--is a nonprofit, international organization responsible for establishing standards for the Internet. If they deprecate (discourage use of) a given HTML tag, then sooner or later software companies that create browsers will stop supporting that tag. Not only that, but website owners avoid deprecated tags the way that linguists avoid grammatical errors. Most good website owners believe in some variant of the theme of seeking technical correctness, as defined by the W3C. That's a good thing, because both web browsers and websites should be standards-compliant.

I do not consider those examples of pure luck--although I agree there was an element of luck there. Take the Patriots, for example. In the 2000 draft, they had two fifth round picks, and two sixth round picks. (As well as a number of other picks.) The first of their two fifth round picks was used Dave Stachelski, a player who lasted for two years (both on the Saints) before retiring. The second fifth rounder was used on Jeff Marriott, a player who never played a down in the NFL. The first sixth rounder was used on Antwan Harris, a CB who had two starts over his whole career. He put away his Cleveland jersey and retired after the 2005 season. The second sixth rounder was used on Tom Brady. Late round picks are a lot like lottery tickets: the odds of any one late round pick turning into something special are very low. But a team with a good front office will have a higher percentage of hits among its late round picks than will a team with a Matt Millen as a GM. If (to use hypothetical numbers) a Matt Millen type hits on 2% of his late round picks, and a Bill Polian hits on 10% of his late round picks, then over the course of several years you'll see an appreciable talent difference between the two GMs' respective teams. You could point to any late round Polian success story and say, "he got lucky there. He only had a 10% chance of hitting, and he hit." But the reason Polian had that 10% chance was because of his talent, hard work, and the quality of his scouting staff. The same is obviously also true of the Patriots' front office which, since 2000, has shown a strong propensity for acquiring good player talent. Late round success stories, such as Brady, are more likely to show up on Scott Pioli teams than they are on Matt Millen teams. (Even though the odds of any one Scott Pioli pick turning into a Tom Brady story are of course very slim.) The Saints' Super Bowl win was also a reflection of their front office. They needed a QB. The two big free agent QBs that year were Drew Brees and Daunte Culpepper. The Saints front office wisely focused its attention on Brees; whereas the Dolphins foolishly chose Culpepper. That was one in a series of decisions which proved the Saints' front office was better than that of the Dolphins. Eventually, the Dolphins' lack of talent led to that 1-15 season, the firing of their front office, and the hiring of Parcells. Conversely, the Saints' success at finding talent--at far more than just the QB position--directly led to a Super Bowl win.

I think you defer, and here's why. Your opponent is going to have a certain number of possessions over the course of the game. (On average, that number shouldn't be affected by whether you defer or take the ball.) By deferring, you get an early start on getting those possessions out of the way. Taking the ball means your defense gets to rest at the beginning of the game, at a time when it isn't tired and hasn't done anything yet. Deferring means that instead, your defense gets to rest just after halftime. By then your defense is probably tired, and could use the extra rest. As far as morale goes--you don't want your team becoming mentally dependent on the idea of scoring first. Yours should be the kind of team that doesn't mind battling back from moderate point deficits. It's a 60 minute game, and your players should be coached to display relentlessness over the course of the full 60 minutes. This kind of mental approach requires patience, confidence, and the desire to inflict punishment on the other team at every opportunity. It's the mental approach the Titans had, back when the Titans were good.

In answer to your question: the last time the Patriots traded away one of their aging vets for an early Bills' draft pick, it worked out pretty well for them. I think they'd do a deal like that again in a heartbeat if the opportunity arose. Fortunately, this team is no longer being run by TD. So I think the chances of the rebuilding Bills squandering an early pick on an aging veteran are relatively small.

The number you seem to be looking for is Brohm's percentage chance of scoring a TD on any given possession. My contention is that you're not going to find that number--at least not with any degree of accuracy--by looking at the data you already have. The sample size is too small. First, let's count up the number of offensive possessions Brohm has had, both in the regular season and the preseason. Since he's had so little playing time, let's lump those possessions together. Then, I think you have to eliminate anomalous possessions from the data set. For example, Brohm didn't know then offense either in his rookie year in Green Bay, or last year with the Bills. Neither instance of playing time should be considered representative of the Brohm you'd be getting when he does know the offense. Then, you have to eliminate possessions where the objective was to run out the clock, or where there was too little time for a quarterback to reasonably be expected to put his team into the endzone. After you've done all that, you're left with a very small number of possessions to base any opinion on. (His second preseason with Green Bay, plus the game he just played.) Those possessions just aren't numerous enough to draw any definitive conclusions about whether Brohm is or isn't good at putting the ball in the endzone. There's too much random variation that has nothing to do with Brohm. For instance, if Brohm throws a perfect pass on 3rd and 7, and the receiver drops the ball, then that entire possession is wasted as far as getting the ball into the endzone. Or, the offensive coordinator could call a running play on 3rd and 7. Or an offensive lineman could miss a block, and cause a sack. All sorts of things can happen to ruin possessions, and with such a small sample size you're not going to be able to eliminate the effect of that noise. A better way to analyze a QB's play is to watch the tape, and compare a QB's actual performance against what would have been achieved by a hypothetical perfect QB. Here's an example. Play 1: your QB completes a 15 yard pass. You determine that the hypothetical perfect QB could have completed a 20 yard pass. 1.5 points for your QB, and 2 points for the perfect QB. Play 2: your QB gets intercepted. The hypothetical perfect QB would have completed a 10 yard pass. -10 points for your QB, 1 point for the perfect QB. Play 3: your QB gets sacked. The perfect QB would have thrown the ball away. -1 points for your QB, 0 points for the perfect QB. After doing all this, you compare your QB's "score" with that of the perfect QB. That percentage tells you how successful he was at taking advantage of whatever opportunities he had. You can do the same thing for some other QB, to see how successful that other QB was at taking advantage of his opportunities. If QB A played 60% as well as a perfect QB would have, and QB B played 75% as well, then that says QB B was better. If that method of analysis was used for Brohm, you'd see some plays where he did very well in relation to the opportunities he had, and other plays where he failed to take full advantage of those opportunities. The question is whether he can learn to become more consistent in taking advantage of his opportunities.

Please indicate the justification for the conclusion you've drawn here. Where has the OP indicated or hinted he could play in the NFL? The only point I saw him trying to make about that throw--either in his original post or the follow-ons--was that the throw Brohm made to Jackson down the sidelines was a more difficult (and therefore more impressive) throw than was Trent's throw to Lee. Agree or disagree with that point all you want. But please don't put words into the OP's mouth.

I agree he can be . . . a bit focused on his main themes. But he's still a keen observer of football, and I enjoy reading what he has to write. As for his original post in this thread--I think he made a valid point. I'm not saying I agree with the premise that Spiller was selected just to sell tickets. But I think a strong argument could be made that ticket sales were a key factor in the TO signing. Which means that the possibility should also be considered for the drafting of Spiller. I personally think that selling tickets was a lot lower of a factor in drafting Spiller than the front office's desire for the best player available, as well as Gailey's desire for a "waterbug" back to fit his offense. Maybe someone thought that the extra ticket sales would be nice too. But if so, I think that factor was a distant third in their list of reasons why Spiller was chosen. But that's just my opinion, and I don't claim to be infallible here. Nor do I have any special insight into what the front office is thinking. In the absence of additional information, I'm not going to simply dismiss Bill's opinion out of hand. Especially not when just a year ago, the Bills signed T.O. with the seeming intention of increasing ticket sales.

In fairness to Bill, the offensive line has been neglected ever since Bill Polian was fired (back in the early '90s). Under John Butler, the Bills used just one first round pick on the OL (Ruben Brown), and no second round picks. Same thing under TD--and it didn't help that TD's first round OL pick was Mike Williams. Levy didn't use any first or second round picks on offensive linemen at all. At some point, a guy like Bill gets tired of watching his team's quarterbacks get concussions, chipped teeth, and other injuries. It's also easy to get tired of seeing the offense relegated to dump-off passes due to the lack of time to go deep. What Bill and many other fans need to see is that the current front office will place a high priority on the OL during the draft. (And I'm not talking about using some fifth round pick for Wang, either.) If we add good, solid talent at the tackle positions, move Wood to center, and add a good OG, I think that would do a ton to reassure guys like Bill that the front office gets it. Bill isn't the only guy who needs to be reassured: I think that a good OL would be strongly appreciated by Edwards, or whoever the Bills' starting QB turns out to be. This is not to suggest that I agree with Bill about the Spiller pick. At first I hated the thought of another running back. But if Spiller had a significantly higher grade than the other players available when they picked--as I believe he did--it's hard to pass him up. Especially when this team desperately needs guys in the "game changer" category, regardless of position. Offensive line is and remains one of this team's very top needs. With a good offensive line, the quarterback could have time to throw, which would open up Evans for more deep passing plays. The running game would be improved both because of the better run-blocking, and because opponents would be forced to show more respect for the Bills' passing game. Quarterbacks would have more confidence and fewer concussions. There could be more receiving threats, instead of keeping guys in to block. We would no longer be helpless against 3-4 defenses, because the center would be able to hold his own against their nose tackle. It is no exaggeration to say that improvement at just three OL positions--LT, RT, and C--would transform the entire offense. That is why I want to see the Bills' front office address the OL with early draft picks, beginning with the 2011 draft. At the same time, I don't want to see the Bills reach for need--either at OL or at any other position. Reaching for need is what got us Donte Whitner and John McCargo. (Not that Whitner is a bad player; but he's never going to come close to justifying that 8th overall pick.)

Thanks for posting this. I have to admit to being surprised by how well Edwards played. I still think the Bills should draft a franchise QB in the first round of 2011, if there's one available. It's not every year you get a chance to add a franchise QB. If you need one, and an opportunity to grab one does come along, you almost have to take it. How effective would you say the offensive line was at run-blocking?

Count me in as one of the people who'd like to see more. Good stuff!

Not something I want to hear about one of the Bills' best players! Hopefully things will be okay for Byrd in the long run, but I admit to being nervous about this.

It was difficult for Warner to break into the NFL. He attempted to do so with the Green Bay Packers, but was unable to make the final roster. (Part of the problem was that they had Favre as their starter, and good depth at QB.) After the Packers turned him away, other NFL teams weren't interested in him either. For a while he worked at a grocery store, but he also bounced around other football leagues, including time in NFL Europe. It was something of a coup for him when he finally made it onto the Rams' roster as their third string QB--a sort of victory after years of NFL rejection. Which then proceeded to turn into a much bigger victory . . .

This post prompted me to do a little research. Lee Evans is 29 years old, and TO is 36. Your statement that TO is almost a decade older than Evans is more or less correct. Your statement that Owens' season in Buffalo was equivalent to Evans' second-best ever is a little off (but not much). Below is a list of Evans' seasons, from best to worst. 2006: 1292 receiving yards. 2008: 1017 receiving yards 2007: 849 receiving yards 2004: 843 receiving yards 2005: 743 receiving yards 2009: 612 receiving yards Terrell Owens had 829 receiving yards during his season in Buffalo; which is roughly equivalent to Evans' third-best and fourth-best seasons (out of six). Not to sound like a broken record here, but I love the fact that Evans' drop percentage is so low. That's huge. I also realize there were times when he got open but didn't get the ball, either because of Edwards checking down, or because of the OL's failure to pass protect. That said, Evans has not yet shown he can be a true #1 WR. I see him as a very good #1A--an improved version of Peerless Price, back before we traded him to the Falcons.

If we're talking about good Detroit WRs who had bad QBs, we may as well throw Herman Moore into this discussion. As for Lee Evans, his statistics over the past few years have undoubtedly be harmed by poor QB play, and the offensive line's inability to pass protect. I was very impressed by the fact that his percentage of dropped passes is among the lowest in the league. This is not to suggest Evans will necessarily become complete, #1 WR along the lines of Eric Moulds or Steve Smith (Panthers). But he clearly does some things very well. If the Bills could have him and Moulds in his prime, they'd have one of the league's best pairs of starting WRs.

I fully agree the Bills are not going to be a complete or effective team until they address their needs at QB, pass rushing OLB, and OL. For OL, LT is the biggest need, but the Bills also need a RT and a center. They could always move Wood to C, in which case they'd need a RG instead. As for free agency, there weren't exactly a lot of first-rate players at any of the Bills' major needs. One could always argue that (insert the name of some second- or third-rate player) is better than what we have right now. But the Bills should be focused on finding long-term answers, rather than on attempting to find free agent stopgaps like the ones Marv found. In the draft, Spiller was significantly more highly rated than were any of the other players available when the Bills picked. I'm not any happier about addressing the RB position than you are. On the other hand, this team needs superstars and game changers, in the worst way. We had to get a player like that with our first round pick, if this team is going to go anywhere. Taking a very highly rated player--such as Spiller--seems more likely to produce that outcome than taking would reaching for a lesser player based on need. (Reaching for players based on perceived need brought us Whitner, McCargo, and others.) I realize you probably want the Bills to engage in a drafting strategy that's somewhere between those two extremes. To draft players at positions that are of more need than RB, without engaging in Whitner-style reaches. And that's fair enough. But if Spiller becomes the next Thurman Thomas, and if the LTs and QBs picked 9th - 20th tend to be a little disappointing for where they were drafted, Nix's decision will look like a good one. Like you, I was disappointed when the Bills used their second round pick on Troupe instead of Clausen. But it looks like Troupe is off to a good start for his career. If these early indicators are correct, Troupe will more than justify the second round pick used to take him. As for Clausen--the decision to pass him over will be justified in hindsight if one of the following happens: 1) Clausen has a bad career. 2) The Bills find a QB that's as good or better, in the 2011 draft. 3) One of the current Bills' QBs turns out to be The Guy. The odds of 3) are very slim, so let's focus on 1) and 2). There will be some good QBs available in 2011--guys like Ponder--so hopefully the Bills will draft one of them. In 2010, the Bills seemed to do a good job of finding players that are as good as, or better, than you'd expect from their draft position. If the Bills manage to continue that in the 2011 draft, and if they address QB and LT very early on, it would represent very solid progress towards building a good team! (And yes, I realize that's a lot of ifs.)

Your odds of getting a Pro Bowl level QB from free agency are very slim. Sure there was Drew Brees, but he was an anomaly, made possible by the (unique) Philip Rivers/Drew Brees situation. Stuff like that doesn't happen every year, or even (necessarily) every decade. There have been no Drew Brees-caliber QBs in the primes of their careers to hit free agency since then, and that was several years ago. If the Bills want a real QB, and if they want him to not be an aging veteran in the twilight of his career, their only realistic option is the NFL draft. If you're concerned about the short-term, you could have that QB sit his rookie year. The Bengals went in that direction with Carson Palmer, and it makes sense. No sense in throwing a guy to the wolves before he's learned the offense. If the Bills are serious about winning the Super Bowl, they're going to need a real QB. Not that you absolutely have to have a real QB--the Ravens of 2000 didn't--but it makes your odds a lot better. Getting a real QB through the draft is just the price of doing business. The mentality that this process is too slow, and winning is too urgent a thing, is exactly what got the Bills into their current mess. Since 1980, the Bills have drafted QBs in the first round exactly twice. The first time was Jim Kelly. The second time was Losman. But in Losman's case, TD must have felt at least some reservations about him, or else he wouldn't have tried to trade up for Roethlisberger. Those reservations proved to be abundantly well-founded. If short-sightedness and a lack of commitment to drafting QBs in the first round are what got us into this mess, it's far from clear those are the ingredients necessary to get us out. Many or most teams with real QBs got them in the first round. Peyton Manning. Matt Ryan. Carson Palmer. Philip Rivers. Aaron Rodgers. Eli Manning. Maybe it's time for the Bills to start thinking about doing what those teams did. That strategy seems to have worked for them. The Bills' strategy of immediate gratification, short-term stopgaps, and so forth hasn't exactly worked out well for us.

That sounds a little like the team I had in mind. I envisioned a team with a 3-4 defense, Bruce Smith at RDE, Reggie White at LDE, and Lawrence Taylor at rushing OLB. Unfortunately, getting all three guys might not be possible, so I'll have to think about good substitutes. Another option would be to go offense with your first few picks; acquiring players like Joe Montana, Jerry Rice or Michael Irvin (or perhaps Jerry Rice and Michael Irvin), etc. Just out of curiosity: would the offense you'd assemble be run-oriented or pass-oriented? If the former, how much emphasis would you place on getting a guy like Jim Brown, Earl Campbell, or Barry Sanders?

I'm going to begin this post with a somewhat unorthodox premise, so bear with me. Imagine a football league with ten teams. The players are drawn from the best NFL players of all-time. The league is new, so all ten teams are expansion teams. There is a draft coming up, and each team has one pick per starting position (22 picks total). You are the GM of one of these teams. What style of offense do you intend to have? Run-oriented or pass oriented? Short, high percentage passes, or a more vertical passing game? What style of defense would you employ? A 3-4 or 4-3? Will the defense and player selection emphasize run defense, pass defense, or will it be 50/50? Which specific players do you intend to target with your first few draft picks? Each team's draft will look like this: 1. [position] [player name] 2. [position] [player name] . . . 22. [position] [player name] Which players do you want with your first few draft picks?