Orton's Arm

Other than Ruben Brown at LG, there were no offensive linemen in the top 20 at their respective positions when Johnson played. I think John Fina was ranked the 22nd best starting LT or something; and guys like Corbin Lacina, Jerry Ostroski, etc., were generally considered good enough to be quality backups, but not answers as starters. Johnson played behind a poor offensive line; which exacerbated his main weakness (taking too many sacks). Antowain Smith was the main running back; and was significantly below-average for a starter. So your "good teams" argument boils down to Eric Moulds and Peerless Price at WR; and perhaps Jay Riemersma at TE. Eric Moulds was a very good receiver--a better and more complete receiver than Lee Evans. Peerless Price was a reasonably good deep burner. However, he was slower than Lee Evans, and was rather one-dimensional. He did very poorly after Buffalo traded him away. Jay Riemersma was a decent, but not great, receiving TE. Overall, Johnson played on a team with some very good weapons (Moulds), a few decent weapons (Price and Riemersma), and a few guys who were below average (Antowain Smith). His offensive line was a significant weakness. Compare that to the supporting cast Losman had in the second half of 2006. He had Jason Peters at LT; and overall was the recipient of much better pass protection than Johnson had while in Buffalo. He had Willis McGahee at RB who, while flawed, was a better player than Antowain Smith. At receiver he had Lee Evans, Josh Reed, Roscoe Parrish, and others. While that was not the equivalent of the receiving corps Johnson had, there was still some talent there (especially Evans). Admittedly he didn't have a Jay Riemersma at TE. But overall, he was nonetheless surrounded by an overall better supporting cast than the one Johnson had.

This is an easy one: Rob Johnson all the way. If you gave him time in the pocket, he could and did eat defenses alive. His career stats are 7.2 yards per pass attempt, a QB rating of 83.6, and 30 TDs to 23 INTs (a 1.3 to 1 ratio). By way of contrast, Jim Kelly had 7.4 yards per pass attempt, a QB rating of 84.4, and 237 TDs to 175 INTs (a 1.4 to 1 ratio). Rob Johnson's downfall was that he took too much time to throw, and therefore took too many sacks. But if you put him on a Super Bowl caliber team (presumably with a first-rate offensive line), then most of those sacks, hits, and injuries don't happen. (The line he had in Buffalo was third-rate, as one generally expects from post-Super Bowl era Bills teams.) Rob Johnson is #1 on this list, because he's the guy most able to benefit from good offensive line play. Back when he had Tony Boselli blocking his left side (with the Jaguars), he looked like the guy at QB. #2 on the list would probably be Todd Collins, if only by default. He has decent career stats--6.6 yards per pass attempt, a QB rating of 76.0, and a TD/INT ratio of 1.2. Trent Dilfer's career stats are 6.5 yards per pass attempt, a QB rating of 70.2, and a TD/INT ratio of 0.9. Todd Collins could have been someone's Trent Dilfer. Third on the list is Trent Edwards; who has the skill set to be a good backup QB. Unfortunately, he is deeply flawed, as others on this thread have mentioned. Fourth is Alex van Pelt. He played with a lot of heart, but didn't have the talent to back it up. He'd sometimes give you more than you'd expect, just based on his understanding of the game. But it's hard to imagine him having a sparkling career as an NFL QB under almost any circumstances. Last is Losman, who had all the physical tools one would hope for from a QB. Of all the QBs on this list, only Rob Johnson had comparable physical traits. But Losman lacked Johnson's accuracy and his touch on throws. Moreover, Losman's understanding of the game was by far the weakest of any of the QBs on this list. A quarterback with a million dollar body and a ten cent brain is destined to fail even under positive circumstances, as Kordell Stewart found in Pittsburgh. (Incidentally, the same GM who chose Kordell also chose you know who.)

Speaking of Paup, his name should definitely be added to the list of Bills LBs who showed great potential only to have their careers cut short by injury.

You are correct. Doug Flutie did play in that game.

I'm not entirely clear as to which game you're referring to, but Flutie didn't play at all in either the Titans playoff game or the game in which San Diego mounted a comeback against the Bills.

As a general rule, I feel a player should be evaluated on the basis of his own individual contribution to the team; and not the team's win/loss record. The stats Johnson compiled as a starter were--with the exception of the sacks--very solid. Give that guy pocket awareness and a clock in his head, and he'd be a very good QB. As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Johnson's completion percentage and TD/INT ratio were slightly better than Kelly's; and his yards per attempt average was almost as good. As for Johnson's win/loss record--some of it was due to coaching. For example, in a game against San Diego, the Bills built a modest lead through three quarters of play. Then in the fourth quarter, they began calling a lot of running plays in an effort to kill the clock and end the game. San Diego had really good run defense back then, and they were able to shut down Antowain Smith. Meanwhile, the Bills defense uncharacteristically allowed Ryan Leaf to engineer a comeback; which allowed the Chargers to take the lead. I realize that was just one game. But it often seemed that when Johnson was QB, the Bills lost for reasons other than QB play. The Music City Miracle is another example of such a game. When Johnson walked off the field with 16 seconds left, the Bills had the lead. As for Johnson's supporting cast: the offensive line had very little talent not named Ruben Brown. Everyone else on that line--specifically including John Fina--was a below-average player at his position. Antowain Smith was below-average for a running back, and our TE situation was decent at best. I'll grant that Eric Moulds was a better, more complete WR than Lee Evans; and that Peerless Price was useful as a deep threat. On the other hand, look how Peerless Price's career changed after he left Buffalo! That would suggest that at least some of his success was due to the quality of quarterbacks the Bills had during his tenure here. To have compiled strong-looking stats despite the relatively disappointing nature of his supporting cast demonstrates that Johnson had real talent. Unfortunately the sacks he kept taking overshadowed his many other achievements and his otherwise solid potential.

There are several points worth bearing in mind: 1) Nix does not have unlimited resources. Whether it's draft picks, players or picks that can be traded away, money to be spent on player salaries, etc., there's only so much Nix can do in any one year. 2) The pool of good free agents generally, and good offensive line free agents in particular, is generally very limited. 3) Nix might want to focus all his available draft-day/trade resources on long-term solutions to problems, while allocating very little to stopgap measures. 4) Nix inherited a Bills team with many holes. Given the limitations of Nix's available resources, he could only reasonably be expected to find long-term solutions to a subset of those holes. 5) It is possible--or rather probable--that Nix felt that, given the opportunities available this year, there were relatively few opportunities to find permanent solutions on the OL that offered him good bang for the buck. At the #9 overall pick, for example, Spiller was a more highly rated player than any available OL. I believe that Nix is (or at least should be) deeply concerned about the state of the OL. But he might not have seen good opportunities to upgrade the OL this offseason, or else saw other, better opportunities to find upgrades at other positions of need. Over the course of the first two to three years of his regime, I fully expect him to allocate significant resources to overhauling the OL. The fact that that didn't happen this draft does not mean that it won't happen relatively soon.

If they'd made the playoffs in that second year, they very probably would have been handily eliminated; just as they had been in the first year of their rebuilding effort. I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm certain that Ryan will have the better career. There's a chance Ryan could stop developing as a QB, or that Henne could unexpectedly improve his performance by dramatic leaps. But as of right now, the two QBs have the following career stats: ____________Henne__Ryan QB Rating:____75.2___84.3 yards/atmpt:__6.4____7.2 TD/Int ratio:___0.86___1.52 Based on those numbers and other factors, it is safe to say that Ryan is currently the better QB. I personally believe his future and his upside are significantly better than those of Henne. While I agree that Jauron's coaching and his choice of assistants were of questionable quality at best, I also believe Marv was a big part of the problem. He spent no first-day draft picks on OL; instead trying to fix the problem by signing the likes of Melvin Fowler, Tuten Reyes, Langston Walker, Derrick Dockery, etc. Melvin Folwer--Marv's solution to the problem at center--was barely drafted by the UFL. Dockery and Walker were decent, if overpaid, players. (Plus their bloated contracts drove up Peters' money demands.) Other than the acquisition of the recently-retired Brad Butler, Marv's efforts to address the offensive line were an abysmal failure. More generally, none of his free agent signings were successful. Add to that the fact that his only success story on the first day of the draft was Poz, and you're looking at a dismal track record as a GM. I'd argue the example of the Falcons proves exactly the opposite. As I mentioned previously, they went 7-9 in 2006, with Vick at QB. Vick's severe limitations as a passer were exposed against better defenses. But against other teams, he could compensate for that with his tremendous athleticism and arm strength. He'd run around in the backfield to tempt the other team's secondary to get out of position; and then heave the ball to some WR that had thus been left open. Due in large part to the Vick suspension, the Falcons went 4-12 in 2007 with Joey Harrington taking the snaps. This was a team that had better than 4-12 talent, but that was being held back by the lack of a quarterback. Then they used the third overall pick to take Matt Ryan; which thereby turned a previous source of weakness into one of strength. Ryan proved to be a much better QB than either Harrington or Vick; and thereby gave the Falcons a huge upgrade at the game's most important position. Note here that after Ryan was off the board (3rd overall) there were no other quarterbacks of his caliber available in that draft. I like that idea up to a point. On the other hand, opportunities to draft a true franchise QB are few and far between. If the next Peyton Manning or Drew Brees is there at your pick, you take him, period. Obviously once you have him, the first thing you should do is build up the offensive line for him. They were only able to get away with that because the Patriots were vulnerable and ripe for the picking. "Run the ball and win with defense" will get you a good regular season record, and may even allow you to win a Wildcard playoff game. But as you advance in the playoffs, your opponents become tougher. There will be times when your running game gets shut down, or when your defense allows more points than it should. When those things happen, it really, really helps to have a franchise quarterback and a good passing game. Take the Steelers of the '70s for example. In their Super Bowl against the Los Angeles Rams, their running attack got shut down. And the Rams scored their share of points. Fortunately for the Steelers, Terry Bradshaw came up huge in that game, and they had Hall of Famer Lynn Swan at WR. Those guys allowed the Steelers to score the points they needed to win. The game of football has become considerably more passing-oriented since then. If you look at the dynasty teams--that is, teams where a core group of players made multiple Super Bowl appearances--each of them has had a QB that's played at a high level--typically at or near a Hall of Fame level. Consider the following: '70s Steelers: Terry Bradshaw played at a Hall of Fame level in the postseason, even though his regular season play was mediocre. '70s Vikings: Tarkenton '80s 49ers: Montana '80s Broncos: Elway late '80s/early '90s NYG: Simms/Hostetler '90s Bills: Kelly '90s Cowboys: Aikman '90s Packers: Favre '90s Broncos: Elway Late '90s/early 2000s Rams: Warner 2000s Patriots: Brady 2000s Steelers: Roethlisberger 2000s Colts: Manning The above list illustrates how much easier it becomes to make it to or win a Super Bowl if you have an elite-level quarterback. Compare that to the Ravens of 2000. They had one of the three best defenses of NFL history, they had an offensive line led by Hall of Fame-level Ogden at LT, and they had Jamal Lewis with his 2000 yard rushing season. And yet that team only won, or even made it to, one Super Bowl because it had been hamstrung by limitations at quarterback. Think of how much more it could have accomplished if it had had a guy like Carson Palmer or (better) Peyton Manning under center! I'll grant that as things currently stand, the Bills' situation at LT represents a hole bigger than the one that sunk the Titanic. Also, I agree that their offense will experience major limitations until that hole is addressed. I'm guessing/hoping that when they do address the position, they'll do so with a guy they believe to be the right answer at the position. That typically means a first round draft pick, or else a guy taken in the early second round. Under this theory, there were no tackles they liked at #9. But that would just mean that they'd want to address the LT position early in the 2010 draft.

I agree that Montana was put in a situation deliberately designed to maximize his strengths, while minimizing his major weakness (lack of arm strength). Clearly, he would have been a lot less successful if he'd been placed in a true West Coast offense (based on a vertical passing game).

There's truth to this. But a lot of what Parcells did that first year was achieved with cardboard and duct tape. Take that "noodle-armed QB" you mentioned. Pennington played very well for the Dolphins for a while, largely as a result of the upgraded OL Parcells had assembled for him. But the reason no one wanted him was because he was too old. Eventually Pennington got hurt/replaced, and retired (I think). Henne played well for a first-year starter, but not as well as Pennington played. But the duct tape and cardboard nature of what Parcells had thrown together that first year was exposed even before Pennington was replaced. It was exposed in the Dolphins' playoff game, when they were conclusively eliminated. It was exposed again in the second year of Parcells' rebuilding project, when the Dolphins took a step backwards from the record they had achieved that first year. (Despite Parcells having had the chance to infuse the team with another year's worth of draft picks and free agent signings.) Going into the 2010 season, it appears that the Dolphins are the third-strongest team in the AFC East. In light of all this, the Dolphins' division championship a few years back seems reminiscent of Jauron's 12-4 season in Chicago. In both cases, a team achieved a better record than you'd expect, based on winning just about every close game in which it played, having lucky breaks go its way, etc. Had the Dolphins chosen Matt Ryan first overall, it would have slowed their rebuilding process. The combination of Chad Pennington at QB and Long at LT gave them much more in the way of short-term benefits than Ryan would have. But over the long run, having Ryan at QB would have given the team a much higher ceiling than it currently has with Henne taking the snaps. It's true the Falcons went 4-12 in 2007 and 11-5 in 2008. But part of the reason for the lousy record in 2007 was Vick's suspension, and his replacement with Joey Harrington as their starting QB. It was a train wreck of a season. The Falcons went 7-9 in 2006, which was the last year they had Vick (as opposed to Harrington) at starting QB. In 2009, the Falcons went 9-7; which would seem to indicate that not all that much progress has been made since 2006. The 11-5 record from 2008 was probably due at least in part to a few lucky breaks or short-term measures. I give them credit for solidifying the QB position with Matt Ryan, as well as filling some other holes. Another good example of a quick rebuilding effort is the 2006 Bills' season. This was Levy's first season as GM, and Jauron's first here as Bills' head coach. They achieved a 7-9 record, which was considered not bad for a first year rebuilding effort. But to do that they cut a lot of corners. They felt that to be respectable, Jauron's Tampa-2 defense had to have an infusion of talent at DT, and had to have a particular kind of player at SS. So they blew the 8th overall pick on Whitner, squandered a late first-round pick on John McCargo, and slapped the franchise label on Clements for a year. The second year's rebuilding project was equally short-sighted: their first pick was wasted on a RB, perhaps largely because RBs are associated with an immediate impact. As a fan, I don't want to see rebuilding efforts like this. I would rather my team go 1-15 and 1-15 for its first two years of rebuilding as opposed to doing that. They should grin and bear those losses, while using their draft position to acquire the kind of talent you can't get later in the first round. Peyton Manning, Bruce Smith, Orlando Pace, and other similar players were each taken first overall. San Diego had a solid track record of talent acquisition. I will tend to believe that Nix was a big part of that, until he proves me otherwise. As for Gailey--I saw an article which compared the offenses Gailey had coached with how those offenses did the year before he arrived and the year after he left. His tenure at those teams was almost always associated with significantly better offensive production (in both yards and points per game) than his predecessors or successors had achieved. As someone else has pointed out, he achieved those offensive successes with the likes of Kordell Stewart and Tyler Thigpen throwing the ball. While there's a good chance our front office and coaching staff will be successful over the long-term, I obviously can't promise you they will be. As for short-term success--I honestly hope the Bills don't find it. We need a franchise QB a lot more than we need a "quick start" to our rebuilding process. 1-15 gives us a better chance at truly solving the QB problem than 9-7 does.

I didn't indicate that it was possible for a college quarterback to prove he can do everything he'll be asked to do as a pro. But some college QBs show more NFL-like traits or abilities than others. Take a guy like Joe Montana, for example. In college, he showed a high level of accuracy, leadership, and the ability to hit his receivers in perfect stride. Those are all traits you want in your starting QB. (Though apparently the GMs of the time also wanted a lot of arm strength; which is the main reason why Montana lasted until the third round.)

It sounds like you're feeling extraordinarily frustrated with this Bills team and the direction it's taken over the last ten+ years. Quite frankly, I can't say I blame you. On the contrary. The problem is that while other teams were moving forward and making progress over the last ten years--building themselves up--the Bills were achieving little. Peyton Manning was taken first overall in the 1998 draft. I mention him because I want to draw attention to the fact that other teams have spent the last ten+ years acquiring long-term building blocks, and keeping them. Obviously, the Bills have no players from the 1990s. In fact, let's look at the first round picks from 2000 to the present to see how many are still helping the team. 2000: Erik Flowers. Result: bust. 2001: Nate Clements. Result: first contract and out. 2002: Mike Williams. Result: bust. 2002b: traded for Drew Bledsoe. Result: released after three years. 2003: Willis McGahee. Result: traded for two third round picks. (Those picks became Marcus Stroud and Trent Edwards.) 2004a: Lee Evans. Result: a solid starter. 2004b: J.P. Losman. Result: UFL Championship 2005: none 2006a: Donte Whitner. Result: a player roughly equal to George Wilson 2006b: John McCargo. Result: unsuccessfully attempted to trade him for a fifth round pick 2007: Marshawn Lynch. Result: discontented player worth no more than a third round pick in a trade 2008: Leodis McKelvin. Result: a reasonably good young player who looks to play nickel back this year 2009a: Aaron Maybin. Result: produced nothing his rookie year, but may be more successful as an OLB 2009b: Eric Wood. Result: a solid interior OL who's coming back from a gruesome injury Other than Lee Evans and Eric Wood, there's no one on this list where you could say, "The Bills are counting on this guy to be a solid starter at his position." If you consistently fail to build your team through the draft, and specifically through the first round, then you're going to fall behind the teams that have succeeded in that task. Catching up to those teams is not the work of a single year. Obviously the team was very poorly run under Jauron. Key positions such as quarterback and offensive line were neglected, resources were showered on positions like DB and RB, and there were some real reaches in the draft. Players in the latter category included Whitner (obviously), McCargo, and Lynch. With the exception of McCargo, none of those guys played a position the Bills should have been trying to address in the first round to begin with. That depends on whether you're just throwing something together for one year, or if you're trying to build a team that will last for a while. If you look at last year's team, only two players out of the front-7 represented good long-term answers at their respective positions: Poz and Kyle Williams. So that's five holes right there! Add to that the holes at QB, LT, RT, C, etc., and that's a lot of holes! Not only that, but there are very few difference-makers or game-changers on this team. You need a few of those if you want to be really good. I was not happy about the idea of addressing the RB position with our first round pick. But if Spiller was a significantly better football player than anyone else on the board when we picked, then I could see some sense in taking him. I just hope that next year, the best available player is at a position we really need.

Losman made some big plays in 2006. It seemed like once or twice a game there'd be a 40 yard long bomb to someone like Lee Evans. Plus there were other times when he'd roll out to his right, gun the ball down the sideline, and hit a TE or someone for a 15 - 20 yard gain and a first down. Add in a few more run-of-the-mill successful plays, and you had what on the surface appeared to be a QB who was progressing. The problem is what Losman didn't do in 2006. The offense was considerably simplified to allow him to be successful in it. Even in that simplified offense, he didn't show the ability to make multiple reads. There was no touch on his shorter passes. At no point did he seem all that good at reading defenses, or at any other aspect of the mental side of the game. Defenses learned that when you play Losman, you take away the long bomb to Lee Evans and dare him to beat you with his underneath game. Force him to try to kill you with a thousand small cuts. The intrinsic weaknesses of Losman's game were cruelly exposed in 2007; when defenses did exactly that. Losman's weaknesses were evident all along. It was because of those weaknesses that the front office brought in first Nall, and later Edwards, in an effort to replace him. It was because of those weaknesses that Losman lost his starting spot to a rookie, and was later relegated to third string status. It was because of those weaknesses that he was relegated to the UFL for a while, and can now barely hold onto an NFL roster spot. Losman has immense physical gifts. A very strong arm, and good foot speed to match. It's easy to fantasize about how good a QB he could be, if his brain ever caught up with his body. But it never has, and never will.

I agree with your implication that the offensive line of the 2010 Bills is likely to be a joke. I also agree that a good offensive line is a critical component to making the offense work. But I feel your criticisms of Gailey and his approach to building this team are, at best, premature. The team Gailey inherited had holes at numerous positions. Even if he had stuck with the Tampa-2, he only had two relatively young, starting quality players in the front 7. (Kyle Williams and Poz.) Everyone else was either mediocre, close to retirement, close to age-related declines in play, or some combination of the three. That meant that over the next 2 - 3 years, the incoming GM would need to find five starting-caliber players for the front seven, even if they stuck with the Tampa-2. So that's five starting-caliber holes on defense right there. Then there are the holes on the OL: most notably at LT, C, and RT. There's a hole at QB, a hole at #1 WR, and probably one or two other holes as well. I'll grant that the Spiller pick was something of a luxury pick. On the other hand, most experts felt that he was a significantly better football player than the other guys available when we picked. Also, this team has no game-changers on offense, and few (other than Byrd) on defense. Spiller has the potential to be a game-changer. Their next two picks were used to address holes in the front seven; which was a very legitimate use for them! The 4th rounder was used on a guy who has some of the physical measurables you'd associated with a #1 WR; though whether Easley can turn into one is a very open question. Add in some of the Bills' free agent signings of defensive players, and you can see solid progress towards making this team the way it should be. I was extremely disappointed that the Bills made little or no progress towards filling the holes in which I was most interested (QB and LT). But I respect the fact that they filled holes at other positions; and that they will have an opportunity in the 2011 draft to address the holes at QB and on the OL. This is a multi-year rebuilding project. It will take a while for the Bills to recover from the disasters of the TD drafts and the Marv drafts. As long as the Bills make steady progress towards rebuilding, I will tend to be cautiously optimistic about the team's future.

I agree with you on both counts. That said, a guy with a name like Byrd is going to have a real edge when it comes to twittering.

I agree with this post. There are a lot of ways that college QBs can attain success that won't necessarily translate very effectively to the NFL level. The question NFL GMs are (or should be) asking isn't just "was this guy successful in college?" but rather, "of the things I'd like my starting quarterback to be able to do, how many has this guy proven he can do in college?"

We're losing one of our best players on offense (Terrell Owens) and probably losing one of our best players on defense (Schobel). Due to the transition to the 3-4, some of our guys from last year will be playing out of position. That's not too huge a deal in the long run--the guys playing out of position are mostly guys who need to be replaced anyway--but it's still a temporary source of pain. We're also losing Brad Butler; though I admit that we didn't get a full 16 games out of him last year either. Plus it's not clear how much we can count on Marshawn. I realize the negatives I've just listed will be partially or fully balanced out by a number of positives. Better coaching. A solid draft. A few reasonably solid free agent signings. Players from the 2009 draft contributing more as second year players than they did as rookies. The potential emergence of guys previously hidden on the depth chart. (Such as Steve Johnson.) There's a significant chance the Bills will have a 6-10 record or better. That makes me nervous. Sure, winning games is always nice, but at this point we need a franchise quarterback. Someone might come back at me with, "Winning games now helps build confidence in the players for the future." I'll grant that. But you know what else inspires confidence in the players? Having a franchise quarterback. If you have a Peyton Manning under center, you know that you have a chance to win on any given Sunday!

I strongly doubt the Bills will finish with the worst W-L record in the NFL. 6-10 or 7-9 seems about right for this team. But I'd honestly prefer 1-15 to 6-10. 1-15 gets us what should be a franchise QB. 6-10 gets us a draft position similar to the one we just had!

I strongly disagree with your post. This team has major, glaring holes at some of the most important and difficult-to-fill positions, most notably including QB and LT. (But also C, #1 WR, RT, and other positions.) If going 1-15 is the price we need to pay to get a franchise QB, I'll gladly pay that price in a heartbeat. As things currently stand, this team can probably use Gailey's coaching to gimmick its way to better offensive production than it really deserves. But gimmicks can only get you so far, and won't get us past a real defense. Likewise, our own defense has some holes--or at least major question marks--among some of the positions on the front seven. Those weaknesses will need to be replaced with strengths at some point. Give this team a couple of solid drafts, and many or most of the weaknesses I've just described can be turned into strengths. If we go 1-15 in 2010, we can grab a franchise QB early in the first round of the 2011 draft. Possibly, we can also fill the hole at LT, either in the second round or by trading away our 2nd and 3rd round picks to get back into the first. Then in the fourth round we can grab an OG, with the intention of an interior OL of Levitre, Wood, and 4th rounder. Then in 2012 the Bills could use their first round pick on a WR, their 2nd round pick on a RT, and their third round pick on a defensive front 7 player. In 2013, they should use a first rounder on another defensive front 7 player, and their remaining picks as needed to fill out whatever holes we have. With the aforementioned first round WR, QB, LT, and others having gained NFL experience by that point, we'd be looking at a formidable team! But doing all this would require a commitment to build a team the right way; as opposed to slapping something together quickly with a bunch of duct tape and cardboard.

That's some good info! The fact that Fowler is only 31 and can't hold onto even a backup spot in the NFL, and barely managed to be drafted by the UFL, speaks volumes about the man Marv once billed as his answer to the hole at center. Kent Hull he ain't.

I largely agree with your first paragraph. If your starting QB is Joe Montana in his prime, and if you have Steve Young backing him up, it would be foolish to use your first round pick on a QB. Using similar logic, I had misgivings about the Spiller pick; even though most draft experts had him as the highest-rated player on the board when the Bills picked. In a perfect world, you as a GM could trade into a draft spot where the best available player was also a guy at a position of need. In this past draft, that could have meant trading up (for example to grab a LT) or trading our pick away to someone who coveted Spiller. But this world isn't perfect, and the trading opportunities you want aren't always there. So draft picks should be based on some combination of need and best player available; with a bias towards the latter. If you grab talent at a position where you're already set, you can always trade the more veteran/established player away for more picks. But if you take a Donte Whitner eighth overall, there's nothing you can do to salvage the situation. As far as talent evaluation goes--I really like the fact that Nix is now running the show. If the problem was with the guy making the final call, we should see significant improvement in the team's talent evaluation. But if the problem was with the scouts themselves, then I agree that more will need to change.

This isn't a case of hindsight, at least not for me. Before that draft, I really wanted the Bills to stay put at #8 and draft Cutler, or to trade down and take Mangold. As it turns out, they could have grabbed both players! I think this is a case where the Bills' front office may have lost perspective a little bit due to too much emotional involvement leading to wishful thinking. Wishful thinking involving Losman, Fowler, Whitner, and McCargo. It's a lot easier to be objective when your career isn't on the line even if things go poorly.

It's true he started for the Browns. But that team--which had more than a few holes--nevertheless decided to use an early draft pick on Fowler's replacement. To me that suggests they regarded his position as an even bigger hole than any of the others. After Fowler's time with the Browns was over, he evidently couldn't get a starting gig anywhere. The NFL had apparently--and correctly--realized he wasn't starting material. He was therefore signed as a backup on the Vikings. Allegedly he played well when Birk went down with an injury. But that said, I'm not aware of any NFL GM--other than Marv Levy of course--who pursued Fowler as a starting-caliber center even then; or who thought of him as a long-term answer at center. In the first round of the 2006 draft, Marv chose to reach for players based on "need"--first at SS at 8th overall, and then again at DT later in the first round. I guess the thought was that a good SS and a good DT were necessary to keep the Tampa 2 defense as a whole competitive; and that a competitive Tampa 2 defense could keep the team as a whole competitive. Cutler was drafted shortly after Whitner. Even if you're not a Cutler fan, you have to be a fan of what Denver got for him in that trade. But of course Marv chose not to draft Cutler because he had Losman on the roster. Nick Mangold was taken shortly after the Bills took John McCargo. Mangold is now the best center in the league. But of course we couldn't possibly consider drafting him, because we had Melvin "I am your 'solution' at center" Fowler on the roster, and because we "needed" a DT for the Tampa 2 right away!!! angry: The 2006 draft was a perfect case study as to why it's generally not a good idea to reach for players based on perceived need. Especially not if you're a rebuilding team!!

I suspect there's more than a little truth to this post. At least, if I was in Gailey's place, I wouldn't want to make premature decisions about who my starters would be. Better to give the players a chance to gain some familiarity with the offense before deciding which ones are the best at their respective positions. I also agree with your point that Johnson will be given an opportunity to earn a starting spot at WR.

This from Buffalo Bills.com: "Steve Johnson for the second time this week was lined up opposite Lee Evans at receiver with the first offensive unit." While Hardy may have had the early lead in the competition for a starting slot, it looks like Johnson is closing the gap.