Orton's Arm

Before I reply to the above post, I'd like to commend you for your stellar effort at showing that Revis was indeed a shutdown CB; and that his success was not merely due to pressure from the Jets' front seven. (Not that the front seven didn't help; because clearly it did.) You did a commendable job of creating much better posts than I'm used to seeing on these boards! As for your above post, I suppose one could make the argument that the importance of the RDE position in a 3-4 depends on the level of athlete you have there. If you have an "ordinary" 3-4 RDE, he's almost more like a DT in a 4-3 than he is like a DE. By that I mean that a DT in a 4-3 and an "ordinary 3-4 RDE" are both supposed to be run-stoppers first; as well as guys who can put pressure on the QB on passing downs. Neither player is necessarily supposed to come away with double-digit sacks, or anywhere close. But if you have a special 3-4 DE--such as Bruce Smith--then suddenly he becomes a much bigger part of your pass rush strategy. Back when the Bills had Bruce Smith and Bryce Paup, their pass rush wasvery hard for offenses to handle, because it was almost impossible for the offense to double block both players. Had Smith been able to play in the playoff game against the Steelers, I think the Bills would have won that game. More generally, I believe that, all else being equal, a 3-4 defense is significantly more likely to achieve an elite level when you have at least two very good pass rushers on the field at any one time. However, guys like that are very hard to find.

I largely agree with this post. But there are a few nuances I see differently. In a 3-4, there are four highly critical positions: NT, RDE, pass rushing OLB, and #1 CB. The NT is supposed to use up two defenders while being an anchor against the run. You want a guy like Ted Washington or Pat Williams there. The RDE is also supposed to be solid against the run, while being a source of a good pass rush. Bruce Smith is obviously the dream RDE, but if you can't have him you at least need a Marcellus Wiley. The perfect pass rushing OLB is a guy like Bryce Paup--a guy who knows how to get to the QB, but who also gives you versatility to stop the run or drop into coverage. A solid overall football player. The fourth player you need for a 3-4 to be successful is a good shutdown CB. An Antoine Winfield. With a guy like that, you can put him in one-on-one coverage against the opponent's best WR, and know that you'll be okay. The #1 WR will probably catch a pass here or there, but over the course of the game he's going to be kept under control. The fact that you can get away with covering their #1 with just one guy frees up an extra guy for your defense. One of the main themes of the 3-4 is to free up as many players as possible. Each defender thus freed up becomes a source of unpredictability. You can rush your three down linemen + one LB, for example. Even with that, the other team won't necessarily know which LB is going to rush. So that's unpredictability right there, even without blitzing! But if you can add in a second rushing LB, that will make your pass rush even tougher for the other team's offense to handle. A shutdown CB gives you the flexibility to rush that extra man, instead of having to use that defender to double cover the other team's #1 WR.

Someone who (for whatever reason) wanted to justify this decision could make the following points in Trent's favor: Last season, Trent was still a young, developing QB. Trent didn't have an offensive line last year. Trent had no QB coach last year. Trent had a first-year offensive coordinator who hadn't been given the offseason to prepare, and who was clearly in over his head. Trent's go-to receiver was an aging Terrell Owens, who dropped a lot of passes. Other QBs--most notably Drew Brees--have taken a step backward, only to then move forward. The above list sounds great and all. But if Trent really was the next Drew Brees--or anything close--I'd expect to have seen a lot more from him last season than I did. Not necessarily in terms of output, but in terms of seeing multiple reads, reading defenses, stuff like that. Maybe Brohm is as bad as some of the people on this thread have written. If so, Trent deserves one last shot at this, if only by default. But at this point, I think the Bills would be best-served by using a first round pick on the QB position in the 2011 draft.

On these boards, any given opinion is sure to be taken to an extreme by someone! In past years, Steve Johnson has played well in the preseason and in practice. I'd like to see him get the chance to show what he can do in regular season NFL games. The same coaching staff which kept Johnson on the bench was also responsible for keeping Fred Jackson off the field in favor of an aging and inept Anthony Thomas. So there isn't necessarily merit to the argument that Johnson would have seen the field had he deserved to do so.

Normally QBs taken in the earlier parts of the draft receive somewhat higher contracts than would have been the case, had they played any other position. If (for example) the 10th guy picked is a QB, he'll get more money than #9 or #11.

The salary cap works like this: Suppose Team X pays a player a $5 million bonus, with $1 million a year in base salary. The contract is five years long. Each year, the player's cap hit is $1 million base salary + 1/5th the bonus. The cap hit for the bonus is 1/5th the total because it's a five year deal. Each year for the next five years, this player will create a cap hit of $2 million. Now suppose that, for whatever reason, the player doesn't stay with your team for the full five years. Maybe you trade him away, maybe he retires, maybe you release him. The cause of his departure doesn't really matter, at least not for cap purposes. Let's say that you get rid of him after year three. That means that there's $2 million in bonus money you paid him (back when his contract was first signed), that hasn't yet been counted against the cap. In the first year of his absence, you'll have $2 million in dead money because of that bonus. Meaning, that the remaining part of his bonus will count against your team's cap for the year, even though he's no longer with you. After that year is over, he'll be off your books completely. Getting rid of a player early means that you accelerate whatever cap hit for the bonus money you paid him. You were going to take that cap hit anyway--but getting rid of the guy early means you take it all at once, in one lump. On the other hand, you no longer have to worry about the cap hit for his base salary, because he's no longer collecting a paycheck from your team. The Bills are so far below the salary cap that none of the above materially affects them. The real constraint the Bills face is Ralph Wilson's ability to pay money to players. In recent years, the salary cap has increased significantly, even as a percentage of revenues. The definition of revenues has also been broadened; causing the percentage of revenues which are shared to decrease. The upshot of all this is that it has now become significantly more difficult for small market teams to have the same size payrolls as teams from larger cities.

These are my thoughts exactly. I could see disliking a player for being a jerk, or being selfish, or an underachiever. But to fault a guy for not having enough talent? I don't see how you can do that. Most of us here don't have NFL-level talent either. Many (most?) of the people here would jump at the chance of an NFL paycheck, if that opportunity presented itself. So how do you fault a guy who gives it his all, but who didn't have as much talent as he (or the fans) would have liked? One thing I was very surprised by was the mention of Scott Norwood's name. He seems like a guy who worked hard, gave it his best shot, and is a good man. He doesn't go around murdering ex-wives and their boyfriends, he doesn't steal $20 bills from people or get in trouble with the law, he was never known for slacking off. There's something to be said for that. During that one Super Bowl, his best wasn't good enough. I'm sure the people hating on Scott Norwood have experienced their share of failures and setbacks in life. Times when their best wasn't good enough. How would they like to be treated after such times?

The defenses of the mid-2000s were somewhat overrated. Sure, they were ranked #2 in terms of yards allowed, but their points allowed rank was lower. 5th overall, IIRC. Also, I once did an analysis of how the 2004 defense performed against the Patriots. The Patriots' offense was slightly more successful (on a per-drive basis) against the Bills' defense, than it had been for the other 14 games of the season. When the stakes were the highest, and the other team's offense was well-run, the Bills' defense looked average or slightly below average. That is, it performed slightly worse than the other defenses the Patriots faced. I do, however, remember Gregg's defenses absolutely beating the tar out of the weaker offenses in the NFL. If your team wasn't good at blitz pickup, if your QB and overall offense were deeply flawed, Gregg's defense would humiliate you like no other. It was a great defense for bullying the weaker teams, but was less well-suited to standing up against the better offenses. In contrast, the Bills' 3-4 defense of the late '90s played very well even against good football teams and good offenses.

I'm surprised guys like Langston Walker and Derrick Dockery haven't been mentioned yet. We spent a fortune on those guys, and they didn't deliver. Then again, if a player is grossly overpaid, is it his fault, or the fault of the GM who overpaid him? And Marv's name has already been mentioned.

Below is a list of the ways in which this year's team will be worse than last year's. 1) The retirement of Aaron Schobel. He was the leading pass rusher on last year's defense--a defense which didn't always generate much pass rush other than him. 2) The loss of Terrell Owens. Last year, the Jets put Darrell Revis on TO. In their eyes at least, he was the best/most dangerous WR on the Bills' roster. 3) The retirement of Brad Butler. Admittedly he wasn't healthy for large portions of last season anyway. But a healthy Brad Butler has got to be better than an aging Cornell Greene. 4) The loss of Josh Reed. While last season wasn't Reed's best, previous years had seen him be very reliable in the slot. 5) The NT situation. Success in the 3-4 begins with the NT spot. Our two current players there are a rookie and a guy playing out of position. 6) The aging of guys like Stroud, Mitchell, etc. 7) Marshawn Lynch might be a disappointment this season. In time Spiller should pick up any slack that Lynch leaves. But rookie RBs are often questionable at blitz pickup and catching passes out of the backfield. 8) Jairus Byrd is unlikely to intercept quite as many passes as he did as a rookie. There were times when his turnovers made the difference between us winning and losing. 9) The Bills may not be handed easy wins this season, as they were against the Colts' backups last year. Granted, there have been positive things to happen to this team to offset the negatives. My point here is that it's far from certain that the positives outweigh the negatives. Add in what appears to be a significantly tougher schedule, and upgraded division rivals, and it's far from clear that this year's Bills team will surpass the record of last year's team.

That was a good article, and well worth the read. Thanks for linking to it. I remember reading a different article a while back, by Tim Graham I believe. He (or someone he'd referenced) had broken down film from the AFC East OL, to determine the percentage of the time each OL won his battles in the running game. Some Bills' OL won their battles less than 80% of the time; whereas one or two--such as Jason Peters--were above 90%. On plays where all five OL won their individual battles, the yards-per-carry was a good two yards or so higher (IIRC) than on plays when at least one OL lost his individual battle. On an OL where each lineman wins his battles 80% of the time, plays where all five linemen win their battles will occur 33% of the time. On an OL where each lineman wins his battles 90% of the time, plays where all five OL win their battles will occur 59% of the time. That's 26% of your running plays--though you have to upgrade all five OL spots to get those 26 percentage points. As for pass protection--Mike Shanahan once said that you can get by with decent guards, but you have to be strong at center and at tackles. Ross Tucker's article focused on guards' role in pass protection; which is probably the one area where the difference between a decent OL and a premium OL is the smallest. I think that if one were to take a different look at the OL situation--for example, by comparing the amount of time Bills' QBs typically have to throw with the time the Jets' QBs had to throw, you'd see a substantial difference. That difference clearly impacts the passing game as a whole.

Very solid post! I completely agree that the Bills have de-prioritized the OL for some time now. It's quite possible that the financial considerations you mentioned played a role in that. I'd argue that the OL was de-prioritized at an even earlier date than the one you mentioned. During John Butler's tenure as GM (1993-2000), the Bills used one first round pick on an OL (Ruben Brown) and no second round picks. But then again, Wade Phillips was a defensive guy, so maybe that was part of the reason the OL didn't get a very high priority in the mid-to-late '90s. I also agree with your reasons as to why the OL was not a high priority under Levy/Jauron. I think another contributing factor was the general "win now" mentality that Levy/Jauron had--a shortsightedness shared by TD. The emphasis during both regimes was on drafting players who could contribute immediately--such as RBs, DBs, LBs, and so forth--rather than on players--such as OL--who are typically slower to develop.

I partially agree with your post. Obviously, the Bills would be foolish to give up anything of value for Troy Smith. I very much doubt that the Ravens' third string QB will turn out to be The Man. But if you are going to trade away a player, why not trade away Whitner? Don't trade him away for Troy Smith--for obvious reasons--but maybe for a young player at some other position, or (ideally) for a draft pick. The Bills have an overabundance of talent at SS. As was pointed out, a guy like George Wilson or Scott could step in at SS and pick up where Whitner left off. For a while last season, Whitner was even benched in favor of Wilson. Whitner's contract won't last forever. Granted, we could always extend the guy. But instead, why not trade him away for something of value, if there's a team out there who values him? The dropoff in play at SS--if any--would be infinitesimal. Meanwhile, the trade could cause a significant upgrade at some other position. The only problem is that I doubt we could get much for Whitner in a trade.

What bothered me about Butler's era wasn't just the lack of first round picks at OL (other than Ruben Brown). It was the fact that the Bills didn't use a single second round pick on an OL during his tenure. Surely there had to be someone on the OL worth taking in the second round while he was GM!! Normally that would be a good place to find a center, an OG, or even a RT.

Of the players you mentioned, I think the most likely to work out is moving Wood to center. I believe the next-most-likely is putting Calloway at guard--in part because it's easier to be a successful guard than a successful tackle. Meredith at RT is the second least-likely move to work out and, as you pointed out, Bell at LT is the biggest longshot. Maybe they could even plug Wang in there for a while to see how he fits. But even if only Wood and Calloway work out, that would still be one less hole on the OL going into the 2011 draft. And they may as well give the other younger players a shot, on the off chance of filling another OL hole.

It's worth noting that of the top 10 LTs in the league today, nine were taken in the first or second round. Of those, six were taken within the first 15 picks of the draft. I agree that it would be a mistake to categorically write off guys taken after the second round, because a Jason Peters story occurs from time to time. But those are typically rare occasions. As a fan, I'm not going to feel particularly comfortable about the LT spot until we either a) see some good play from it, or b) see significant resources invested in a solution that visibly has a high probability of success. And by that I specifically do not mean, "Eye up Green Bay's practice squad or a list of players released by the Raiders to see which guys look the most promising." This is the first year of Nix's tenure; and he inherited a team with a ton of holes. It's far too soon to make any generalizations about whether he is or is not guilty of neglecting the offensive line. Conversely, it's clear that TD spent too little (in the way of draft picks) on the OL. TD inherited a team with no OL other than an aging Ruben Brown. To address that situation, he used one first round pick, and one second-round pick. The problems on the OL were exacerbated by the fact that the first round pick was a bust, and the second rounder went first contract and out. TD picked up right where John Butler left off. From 1993 (when Butler became general manager) through 2000 (his last year as GM), the Bills used only one first round pick on the OL--Ruben Brown at guard--and no picks in the second round. This, despite the poor state the line was in through most of that time, especially later in the '90s. This Bills team has a ton of holes on it--enough holes that we can't expect to fill all of them with first and second round draft picks. This team represents a great opportunity for later round draft picks and unheralded free agents to prove themselves. But unless three new solid starters emerge on the OL--at LT, C, and RT--I would hope that Nix would invest reasonably high draft picks to fix the problem. I'd like to see him definitively depart from the Butler/TD/Marv era; a time during which we devoted very few draft day resources to the OL despite the obvious need.

That list of the best LTs in the NFL is a good find! I'll list the LTs and where they were picked. Bolded players were taken in the top 15 picks. 1) Joe Thomas, Cleveland. 3rd overall pick 2) Ryan Clady, Broncos. 12th overall pick 3) Jake Long, Dolphins. 1st overall pick 4) Jared Gaither, Ravens. 5th round pick 5) Michael Roos, Titans. 2nd round (9th pick of 2nd round) 6) D'Brickashaw Ferguson, Jets. 4th overall pick 7) Jordan Gross, Panthers. 8th overall pick 8) Matt Light, Patriots. 2nd round pick (48th overall) 9) Jammal Brown, Saints. 13th overall pick. 10) Marcus McNeil, Chargers. 2nd round pick (50th overall) Of the ten players listed above, nine were taken in the first or second rounds. Six were taken in the top 15, including four taken in the top 10.

I assume this was in response to my post. (If not I apologize.) I think it's important to pay attention to not just what a player says, but the context in which it's said. Reed's comments were made in the immediate aftermath of the Bulger signing. Reed was clearly unhappy about that signing, and about Troy Smith's demotion to third string status. Some people are known to exaggerate a little when they're angry or when they're trying to prove a point. Without knowing Reed, I can neither confirm nor rule out that possibility in this case. I personally suspect that if Troy Smith had been performing at a high level in practices and in the preseason, that the Ravens wouldn't have brought in Bulger to take the #2 QB spot. Granted, NFL front offices have been wrong before. Witness the fact that the Green Bay Packers cut Kurt Warner, and that no other NFL team would take him for a while. On the whole, however, I'd trust the opinion of a front office a lot more than that of a safety.

Based on the tone of Ed Reed's comments, I think he's responding to the (perceived) injustice of Troy Smith's demotion to third string status. Under those circumstances, we have to make allowances for at least the potential of a certain amount of hyperbole. This might be a case of a guy saying what he feels needs to be said to back up a friend; as opposed to (for example) a dispassionate analysis by a Polian-like GM concluding that Troy Smith really does have the potential to lead a team to a championship. It's also worth noting that Donte Whitner had in the past expressed a very high degree of confidence in Trent Edwards. The lesson to be learned here is that just because one of your safeties thinks highly of a particular QB, doesn't necessarily mean you should be sold on that QB.

The article you cited did not indicate that Troy Smith's teammates felt he should be the full-time starter. Rather, the teammates--specifically Ed Reed--had objected to Troy Smith's demotion to third-string status. The current pecking order in Baltimore is 1) Joe Flacco, 2) Marc Bulger, 3) Troy Smith. Ed Reed had felt that Troy Smith should have remained the #2 QB. If we were to bring in Troy Smith, the QB competition would be between the Ravens' former third-string QB, the Packers' former third string QB, the Browns' former second-string QB, and our own former third round pick at QB. I somehow doubt that a Joe Montana would emerge from that group.

At least according to Starrymessenger (one of the people on this board), Brohm's college offense required him to make one read, and to dump the ball off if the read wasn't open. Assuming he's right--which I don't claim to be certain of--it would mean that Brohm had failed to prove himself at one of the most important tasks a QB can perform (making multiple reads). (That said, I'm still in the Brohm camp, mostly because I feel more curiosity about his potential than that of Edwards or Fitzpatrick.) Back in the late '90s, there was an argument about whether the Colts should draft Peyton Manning or Ryan Leaf. Manning was considered the more polished and NFL-ready; which translated meant that he'd proven more as a pocket passer at the college level. Leaf, however, had the stronger arm; which caused some "experts" to conclude he had the better upside. My own feeling is that if you want a good pocket passer at a professional level, you take the guy who's proven himself as a pocket passer in college. In this case, that means Ponder. It's important for a QB to find himself in a good system, with a coaching staff that will make the most of his talents, and with a good supporting cast (especially a good OL). But there's still a big difference between what a good QB will achieve and what a less talented one will. Take the New England Patriots, for example. Before Drew Bledsoe went down with that injury, the Patriots seemed like a respectable team. But nothing too special. After Tom Brady took over, however, the Patriots looked like an entirely different team. The pieces had been put in place to have a good offense, and Brady took better advantage of those pieces than Bledsoe had done. One contributing factor to that is that Brady can read the field a full second faster than Bledsoe can. To take another example, the Falcons were dramatically better on offense in Matt Ryan's rookie year than they had been the previous year with Joey Harrington under center. That offensive improvement was largely attributable to the increase in the level of play they'd received at the QB position.

I agree with your general point that you can with the Super Bowl with an average QB. But I feel you're a lot more likely to do so if you have an elite QB playing on a reasonably complete team. Take the QBs you mentioned. The most recent one was Brad Johnson. In the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl, Brad Johnson threw for 22 TDs to just 6 INTs, averaged 6.7 yards per pass attempt, had a QB rating of 92.9, and was invited to the Pro Bowl. That passer rating was actually comparable to Tom Brady's career rating of 93.3. (Though Brady did better on the yards per attempt stat, at 7.3.) During the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl, Johnson played like a significantly above-average QB; and his play was an important factor in the Bucs' win. The second-most recent QB you mentioned was Trent Dilfer; who QB'd the Ravens during their Super Bowl win in 2000. I'll readily grant that Dilfer was the very soul of average at QB. But to make up for their deficiency at QB, the Ravens needed one of the three best defenses in NFL history, a Hall-of-Fame level LT in Ogden, and Jamal Lewis at RB. Overall, the Ravens were a clear case of an all-time-great NFL defense making up for the severe limitations of the offense. Limitations which began at the QB position. The third-most-recent QB you mentioned was Mark Rypien. In the 1991 season--the year he led the Redskins to their Super Bowl win --he threw for over 3,500 yards, had 8.5 yards per pass attempt (1.2 yards better than Brady's career average), had 28 TDs to just 11 INTs, and had a passer rating of 97.9. The high level of quarterbacking he provided that particular year was a critical factor in the Redskins' really irksome triumph in that Super Bowl. The fourth-most-recent QB you mentioned was Jeff Hostetler. In his five playoff games, Hostetler had 9.0 yards per pass attempt, 7 TDs to 0 INTs, and a 112 passer rating. ESPN ranked his performance against the Bills in the Super Bowl the 30th-best all-time Super Bowl performance by a QB. With 44 Super Bowls having been played, and with two QBs per Super Bowl, being 30th best is above-average for Super Bowl QBs. I'll grant that Hostetler's performances in the regular season were less inspired than his post-season performances. Also he was only invited to one Pro Bowl. (He was with the Raiders at the time.) But the point remains that without the high level of play he provided in the postseason, the Giants would not have won that Super Bowl. Doug Williams was the least-recent QB you mentioned. During the year the Redskins won that Super Bowl (1987), Williams averaged 8.1 yards per pass attempt, and had a QB rating of 94.0. In the Super Bowl, he averaged 11.4 yards per pass attempt, and threw for four TDs. I also checked Jim McMahon's stats, to see if perhaps the Bears' defense had helped mask deficiencies at QB, as would later happen with the Ravens. It turns out that the year the Bears won the Super Bowl, McMahon had 7.5 yards per pass attempt, and a QB rating of 82.6. Since 1980, there appears to have been exactly one instance of a team overcoming mediocre play from the QB position to win the Super Bowl. That one instance was the Ravens of 2000, with Trent Dilfer at QB. In literally every other case, the Super Bowl win was either earned by a team with an elite-level QB like Montana or Warner or Manning, or else by a team with a reasonably good QB who happened to be playing at or near an elite level for a season or a postseason.

I'll address your bolded text. There's a difference between addressing the OL and improving the OL. Let's take a look to see where actual resources were invested and improvements made. LT 2008: Peters. 2010: Bell. Result: a significant downgrade at the most important position on the OL. LG 2008: Dockery. 2010: Levitre. An improvement at LG which resulted from the use of a 2nd round pick. C 2008: Fowler. 2010: Hangartnar. Hangartnar was the 32nd ranked center in the league last year. But at least he was in the league, which I don't think is true of Fowler any longer. I'll credit them with making an improvement here; even if it was just a case of replacing one third-rate free agent signing with another. RG 2008: Butler. 2010: Wood. Both guys are or were good football players, but I'd have to give the edge to Wood at this point. We're getting good, solid play at RG because of the first round pick invested in the position. RT 2008: Walker. 2010: Green. This is a case of replacing one Raiders reject with another, older Raiders reject. I'm not exactly prepared to give them oodles and oodles of credit for having done that. The Bills' 2010 OL looks to be strong at both guard positions, and weak everywhere else--especially LT. The 2008 line was reasonably strong at LT, respectable at OG, sort-of respectable at RT, and abysmal at C. Overall, I think the 2008 line provided better pass protection than we're likely to see from the 2010 line. Perhaps in 2011 we'll have filled some of the existing holes (LT, C, RT) which would change the equation.

The quote from this article that really stood out to me was this: Both the Whitner pick and the McCargo pick are illustrative of Levy/Jauron's willingness to reach for players based on need.

If I were coach, I'd strongly consider doing the following: X: either Steve Johnson or Easley or some other similar player. Y: Lee Evans. He was made for the Y position, and wouldn't be a great fit at X. I realize there's the temptation to plug him into X anyway due to the lack of alternatives. But that temptation should be firmly resisted. Z: As you noted, you want a guy who runs good routes. He should also have good hands. I'm not sure that Parrish lives up to either criterion. Instead I think you could go with a guy like Easley, Johnson, or even Hardy at this position; though Spiller could make the occasional appearance here as well. H: Spiller and Jackson are both good options here. I see Lynch as more of a power runner than a guy you'd want on the field in obvious passing situations. FL: Nelson