Orton's Arm

I strongly respect your moxie. After it became clear you had no idea what you were talking about in the debate about the regression effect--or even, it would seem, the far simpler concept of expected value--any normal person would have backed off. You have taken a different tack. I can't give you credit for much in the way of brains; but for sheer audacity, you are second to none.

I completely agree. Note that there wasn't that big a difference between the 5th best team (6.3% of all plays with a tackle broken) and the 24th best team (4.9% of all plays with a tackle broken). That's a difference of 1.4% of all offensive plays! Compare that to blocking. I saw a really good article about run blocking, Marshawn Lynch, and Fred Jackson. It demonstrated that for both players, the key factor was whether all five offensive linemen won their individual battles. When all five did, both players had a sparkling yards-per-carry average. But when at least one offensive lineman lost his individual battle, the average yards per carry fell a great deal for both players. By about two to three yards per carry, if I recall correctly. On running plays, a somewhat respectable OL will win his individual battles about 80% of the time. If all five offensive linemen are at that 80% mark, then on any given play there is a 33% chance that all five of them will win their individual battles. But if each offensive lineman wins his individual battles 90% of the time, then there is a 59% chance of all five guys winning their battles on any given play! That's 26% of all running plays right there! I would tentatively guess that you'd be looking at a similar analysis, and a similar resulting percentage, for passing plays. Possibly even a higher percentage. A team that's good at breaking tackles will get broken tackles on 1.4 percentage points more plays than a team that's lousy at it. A team that's good at run blocking will win all its individual battles on 26 percentage points more running plays than a team that is mediocre at run blocking.

Odd that my old screen name popped up here. The 3.5 thing has to do with the concept of expected value. The expected value of a random event is equal to the summed total of each possibility, multiplied by the percentage chance of that possibility occurring. For example, if I hand you a ticket that has a 50% chance of being worth nothing, and a 50% chance of being worth $100, the expected value is (50% * $0) + (50% * 100) = $50.00. Edit: I looked over this thread, and I see this post fits right in!

I strongly agree with the meta-message of your post. One's draft strategy should have a strong element of best player available; especially if it comes down to a chance to get a difference maker at one position versus a merely solid player at some other position. As an aside, I'd define a difference-maker as a player who fits into one of the following categories: 1) He can be productive even with two normal guys on him. Jerry Rice would get a lot of receptions even while being double covered. Bruce Smith could pile up a lot of sacks even with two guys blocking him. 2) He can cancel out a type-1 difference maker. You could put Deion Sanders on Jerry Rice and be okay. You could put Tony Boselli on Bruce Smith and shut him down. 3) A guy who plays at the same level as a category 1 or category 2 difference maker, but who doesn't play a position that lends itself to one-on-one matchups. Having Joe Montana or Barry Sanders on the field would change the whole complexion of a game. If there's an opportunity to draft a player you think will be a difference maker, you take it. But I also admit I' approach the draft with a bias towards the more important positions. On offense, the most important and hardest-to-fill positions are quarterback and left tackle. Both of which the Bills currently lack. On defense, and in a 3-4, the four most important positions are NT, RDE, rushing OLB, and shutdown CB. From the standpoint of addressing a specific position, the Spiller pick was a disappointment to me. I felt RB was one of the very last positions this team should be addressing with its early picks. But I can accept it on the basis of finding the best available player. If Spiller turns out to be a LaDanian Tomlinson or a Thurman Thomas--a guy who's a threat in the passing game as well as the running game--then it will have been a solid acquisition. But in the absence of a strategy to fill the holes at QB, LT, RT, C, and #1 WR, Spiller will provide only limited value to our offense.

Johnson has done well with the opportunities he's had. Both in the preseason (where he's shined) and in the regular season (where, in what little time he had, he looked like a reliable WR). Jauron didn't let Fred Jackson on the field during the regular season until after Anthony Thomas got hurt. This, even though Fred Jackson had looked very good during the preseason. There's at least the chance that this story could happen again: with Steve Johnson playing the role of Fred Jackson, and guys like Josh Reed and Roscoe Parrish in the role of Anthony Thomas. Conversely, Hardy looks a lot less far along in his development process than Steve Johnson. This isn't about stats as much as it is about route running, body control, shielding the ball from defenders, and all the other things a WR must do well if he is to be successful. Possibly Hardy will significantly improve on those areas, and go on to be a good WR. But at this point in the two players' careers, Steve Johnson is much closer to being a good WR than Hardy is.

I agree with your overall thought process. This team has too many holes to be rebuilt in a single year. Also, and as you pointed out, the Bills will almost certainly need to draft a QB in the first round of 2011. If losing a few extra games in 2010 means the difference between good draft position/getting the right guy and less good draft position/a lesser QB, then I'll willingly pay that price in a heartbeat. A GM should always have the approach of, "What do I need to do to build my team into a Super Bowl winner?" Right now the Bills are a number of steps away from having that kind of Super Bowl winning team. But if they can find an elite QB in the 2011 draft, and follow that up with a very solid LT, they'll be a lot closer to being that Super Bowl team than they are now.

Point taken. But that said, it's extremely anomalous for a QB taken in the early second round to be released as early in his career as Brohm was. How many other second round QBs were released very early in their second seasons in the league? The bigger an opportunity you give a player, the more confident you can feel about cutting him if he fails to take advantage of that opportunity. Brohm was given a very small chance indeed; at least by the standards of early second round picks. Also, as someone pointed out earlier in this thread, the Packers signed Kurt Warner as an undrafted free agent, but released him before the start of the season. After being released from the Packers, Warner stocked the shelves at a grocery store for $5.50 an hour. By no means am I sold on Brohm. But neither am I prepared to completely dismiss him out of hand either. Let's give either him or Levi Brown the 2010 season to see what they can do. On the off chance we find an answer at quarterback out of that, great. If not, the Bills should use their first round pick in 2011 on a QB.

This was a very solid, well thought-out post! I'll begin by summarizing the foundation of your argument: Due to changes in rules and/or officiating, the league has become more pass-oriented. The best teams are those which can pass and stop the pass. RB by committee is more effective than having just one guy carrying the load. RBs' careers are typically short. Over the last ten+ years, the Bills have overvalued the RB position. That has been the source of many of their problems. Over the last six years, the Bills have used first round picks on McGahee, Lynch, and now Spiller. If you have a good offensive line, you can take a Broncos-like approach to the RB position, plug late round picks into the RB position, and have a successful running game. I agree with everything on the above list. However, I'm not 100% convinced that I agree with your conclusion. Points that would lead me to conclude that Spiller may have been a good pick after all: Because the league is becoming more pass-oriented, it changes the kind of running back you really want. A standard-issue "pound the ball between the chains" RB has less utility today than he may have had 30 years ago. Instead, you want a guy who's more of a multi-dimensional threat--someone who helps you on passing downs about as much as he does on rushing downs. A perfect player in the Thurman Thomas mode gives you a lot of options on third downs. A draw play is always an option with Thurman to beat the blitz. Or he can do blitz pickup. Or he can catch a short pass, make the first guy miss, and gain some solid yards after the catch. A guy like Thurman Thomas, Marshall Faulk, or LaDanian Tomlinson is very valuable to a football team. Fred Jackson is a poor man's version of that. By most estimates, Spiller was the best player on the board when the Bills picked. If he lives up to his potential, we'll be getting a player in the Thomas/Faulk/Tomlinson mold. A guy like that is a major asset on passing downs. Think of how many drives Thurman kept alive by key catches on third downs. Spiller has the chance to be our Thurman Thomas!! While RBs' careers tend to be short, a WR-like RB can sometimes have a somewhat longer useful career than a pound-the-rock RB. By no means am I saying that Spiller was the right decision. I admit to having very mixed feelings about this. But I see this as something which could be argued either way. RB was way down on the list of positions I wanted to see this team address. On the other hand, this team needs difference-makers and game-changers. Spiller has the potential to be that; and appears to have been the best available player when the Bills picked. At this point, I'm hoping that this decision works out well, and that the Bills address QB and LT very early in next year's draft.

Yours is a very solid overall post. But I disagree with the last paragraph. Yes, Arizona got to the Super Bowl with Mike Gandy. But the St. Louis Rams won the Super Bowl with Orlando Pace. Trent Dilfer + decent receiving corps + Jon Ogden = mediocre offense. (Ravens' offense of 2000.) Kurt Warner + elite WR corps + Mike Gandy = Arizona offense. (Good, but vulnerable to elite defenses.) Kurt Warner + elite WR corps + Orlando Pace = Greatest Show on Turf. (Nearly unstoppable.) If you want to beat a guy like Joe Montana or Tom Brady or Kurt Warner, your best bet is to knock him on his back. Don't give him any time to throw. Get him rattled. If you have an elite quarterback and Orlando Pace at LT, you're a lot less vulnerable to that kind of aggressive defense than you'd be if Mike Gandy was your LT instead. When Arizona's offense faltered, it was because Mike Gandy and their other blockers were unable to keep Kurt Warner upright and protected.

Some people seem unhappy with the thought of owners being able to cut a player who isn't performing up to the level of his contract. But what happens when a player collects a large signing bonus, then goes into semi-retirement? (As Mike Williams did for the Bills.) Should an owner still be obligated to pay a contract involving large sums? Wouldn't a change like that reward most the guys who should be rewarded the least--such as Mike Williams--while doing nothing for the players who are performing at or above the levels of their contracts? Someone mentioned the idea of shorter contracts. I agree with his point that such contracts would do a better job of matching player pay to payer performance. The downside I see is that they'd make the league become more mercenary, and would tend to shorten the amounts of time players spend with one given team. Under the current system, a portion of a player's contract is guaranteed--the bonus money. The other portion must be earned by play on the field. While that system is imperfect, I don't see a clearly better alternative.

I agree the defense was on the field a lot last year. Therein lies the problem, at least with the stats cited in the original Chris Brown article. If defender A is on the field for twice as many plays per game as defender B, it stands to reason that defender A will get a lot more positive plays than B will have, even if B is playing at the same or moderately higher level. The Bills' defenders were being graded on a curve--a curve which made them appear better than they actually are. As for why the defense was on the field so much--yes, part of the problem was the offense. But the defense contributed a lot too, by not getting off the field on third downs. Please understand that I'm not dismissing the value of the stat--just pointing out one of its flaws. Even after adjusting for the Bills' defense being on the field more often than other teams' defenses, we'd still probably end up with a milder, somewhat less optimistic version of the conclusions presented in Chris Brown's article.

I'm not sure if your comment was addressed to me or to someone else, but I'll respond to it here. Some positions--notably LT, RDE, shutdown CB and, above all, QB--are difficult to address outside of the first round. I recall reading an article which indicated that, of the guys playing LT at a high level, nearly all were taken in the first round. Jason Peters stories will happen on occasion, but they are typically rare occasions. The quarterback position is like that, except even more so. Of the quarterbacks playing at a high level, how many were selected in rounds 4 - 7, or were initially signed as undrafted free agents? Tom Brady comes to mind (6th round pick). But that was ten years ago now. Since then, Tony Romo has emerged as a high level QB who'd initially not been drafted. But that's only two players over the last ten years. Even in rounds 2 - 3, your odds of getting a good quarterback are relatively slim. Nine years ago, the Chargers took Drew Brees with the first pick of the second round (32nd overall). More recently, the Dolphins took the solid but unspectacular Chad Henne in the second round. I'm probably forgetting someone here, but the bottom line is that your odds of getting a good quarterback in the second or third rounds are relatively slim. Top-flight QBs are typically very scarce outside the first round. It is normally very difficult (but not impossible) for a team to win a Super Bowl without a first-rate QB. It can be done if you have a Ravens of 2000 defense, a Jon Ogden-style offensive line, and a 2000 yard rusher/Jamal Lewis at RB. But achieving all that is a more difficult proposition than finding a top-flight QB. Given the above, it seems reasonable to anticipate that the Bills will need to use a first round pick on the QB position if they want a top-flight QB. Sure, I'd love it if someone like Brohm emerged from the present quarterback competition, and proved to be the next Jim Kelly. But the odds of that actually happening are slender. Exactly the same argument could be made, though to a lesser degree, about the hole at LT. On the other hand, it's quite possible--perhaps even likely--that some of the linebackers and other players the Bills took with their later picks will turn into solid starters.

Negatives The Bills went into this offseason with gaping holes at some of the hardest-to-fill positions: QB and LT. They did not address either position until the fifth round of the draft. The Bills used the ninth overall pick to address the RB position. A new RB was low down on their list of needs, and RBs typically have shorter useful careers than other players. For example, Edgerrin James was drafted a year after Peyton Manning, had a successful career, but ceased to be a starter at some point in the 2007 season. Meanwhile, Manning is still going strong. The Bills passed up Jimmy Clausen in the second round. If he has a successful career for Carolina, that decision will appear foolish. Positives Even if the Bills had stayed with the 4-3, they would have needed a significant infusion of talent into their front seven. Only Poz and Kyle Williams represented front seven players who were both a) playing at a high level, and b) young enough to have a number of good years left in them. Of the five starting-caliber players the Bills needed to add to that front seven, they seem to have added two in free agency, and, possibly, two to three more in the draft. This draft probably also brought some solid backups to the front seven. A necessity, considering the switch to the 3-4. Spiller was--at least according to most draft experts--the highest-rated player when the Bills picked at #9. That's encouraging as far as it goes. Apparently Gailey's offense needs a "water bug" (or whatever he called it) type player; making Spiller more of a need than might first appear. The offense needed a QB, LT, and offensive weapons. With the addition of Spiller and Easley, it got at least one new weapon, and maybe two. At least initially, the Bills look to have fewer needs going into the 2011 offseason than they had going into the 2010 offseason. That's progress. At least initially, I think that this draft represented a solid addition of talent to our team. Going into 2011, odds are very good that the Bills will still be in need of a LT and a QB. But if they focus on those two positions with their early picks in 2011 then, in combination with the 2010 draft, this should turn out to be a solid team.

Our offensive line was a lot better at run-blocking last year than it was at pass protection. A guy like Bell was a good case in point. On running plays, he had the quickness and athleticism to run to a given point on the field, and shove some defender out of the way just before the RB arrived. A lot of our other starting offensive linemen were like that too, as they showed in that first New England game. Bell was a huge disappointment in pass protection though. The point I'm making with all this is that the Bills can potentially have a solid running game even without upgrading the offensive line. Of course, there will be harsh limits to how much that running game can actually achieve until we upgrade our passing attack as well. To do that, we're going to need offensive tackles capable of pass protection in addition to run-blocking, an upgrade at center, a #1 WR to take the pressure off Lee Evans at #2, and, above all, a quarterback.

In The Lord of the Rings, one of the characters had forgotten his own name. Instead he went by the name of "The Mouth of Sauron." Maybe a year or two ago, we should have given Chris Brown the label, "The Mouth of Jauron."

Agreed. Let him rot.

Yeah. Because 28 TDs to 4 INTs is an absolute disaster of a season.

I completely agree with this. Trading up into the late first or early second to take Clausen would make a ton of sense. And would make me feel a lot better about the Spiller pick!

In 2001, TD used a 2nd round pick on Travis Henry in a misguided and ultimately failed attempt to find an upgrade over Antowain Smith. In 2003, TD used a first round pick on McGahee in an effort to find an upgrade over Henry. In 2007, Marv used a first round pick (12th overall) on Lynch to try to find an upgrade for McGahee. In each of these cases, there was a perfectly acceptable player already at the RB position, and the team had actual needs at other, critical positions. But trying to upgrade the RB position seemed sexy, it seemed like it would provide an immediate impact; and the fact RBs have short careers didn't necessarily seem all that important to GMs who were focused merely on the present. None of those draft picks worked out. I understand that Spiller is a better talent than the other RBs the Bills have taken; and that there's a chance he'll change games. But this is a rebuilding team; and it makes sense to wait until later to take a short-career RB. Why not take a guy like Clausen, whom Gil Brant rated in the top 10 of players? The Bills need a franchise QB a lot more than an upgrade at RB!! :worthy:

You hit the nail on the head. Over-investing in the RB position is a terrible move from a strategic perspective; even if Spiller turns out to be a very good player. How much of an upgrade over Lynch/Jackson does he really provide? And is that upgrade worth neglecting our QB position (Clausen), or some other area of real need?

Any time your first round QB (Losman) is barely able to make an NFL roster, it's safe to label him a bust. John Parrella was drafted in the second round, had a 12 year NFL career; including seven+ years as a starter. In his best year he had 7.5 sacks, which isn't too shabby for a defensive tackle! But only one of those years (the first) was spent with the Bills, due to some combination of them giving up on him too quickly and his not being a good fit for the system. If you're hinting that Parrella was not a good use of the Bills' second round pick you're correct. But if you believe he had a bust-like career, you're dead wrong.

I agree that a good QB should play behind a good line. Steve Young achieved a lot more in San Francisco than he did in Tampa. You also make a good point about all the draft picks the Bills have spent on QBs since Kelly hung up his cleats. It began with a second rounder on Todd Collins. Then--after Collins started looking iffy--a third on Billy Joe Hobart. Then after it became clear that neither of those guys was the answer, they used a first and a fourth on Rob Johnson. Almost immediately after giving up on Johnson, they traded away a first round pick to New England for Drew Bledsoe. Shortly after it became clear Bledsoe wasn't the answer, the Bills gave up a first, second, and fifth round pick for J.P. Losman. Then--with questions about Losman--they used a third round pick on Trent Edwards. Now that it appears Edwards is no longer the answer, they're shopping for a QB once again. The Bills are in rebuilding mode. As far as I'm concerned, they need to do two things: 1) get the right quarterback, either in this draft or the next. 2) Put him in a position to succeed. That means seriously addressing the offensive line. Achieving step 1 has several advantages. For one thing, it means that they'd stop the bleeding at the quarterback position, at least for a very long time to come. You don't see Indianapolis throwing lots of high draft picks at the QB position every year do you? They don't have to, because they have Manning. The Bills didn't have to draft a quarterback early while Kelly was in his prime. We need another guy like that. Not only to stop this team from bleeding draft picks, but also to provide a high level of play from the quarterback position for a long time to come. The reason the QB position hasn't already been filled with some guy like that is because it's so hard to do. Take the 2004 draft. Eli Manning went first overall, Philip Rivers went fourth overall, and Ben Roethlisberger went 11th overall. By the time the Bills' 13th overall pick came around, only leftover quarterbacks were available. Half-measures such as Losman picks, Bledsoe trades, etc. are worse than useless. Not only do they burn through early draft picks, but they do little or nothing to upgrade the quarterback position. If we're spending draft picks on a quarterback at all it should be on the right quarterback that will be the successor to Kelly. Generally (but not always) quarterbacks like that go very early. If Clausen is in that category, we should take him now; knowing full well we may not get another chance at a guy like that for a long time to come. Clearly, upgrading the offensive line is of absolutely critical importance. The Bills need to find starters at both tackle spots and at center. Until all three positions are addressed--ideally very early in the draft--anyone we put in the backfield will be playing behind a makeshift offensive line. Possibly, the Bills could trade back into the first round to take a left tackle. In next year's draft, they could take a NT in the first, a RT in the second, and an interior OL in the third. Those two drafts should leave us in a relatively solid position on both lines and at quarterback. We'd still have to find some players at WR, LB, and a few other positions though.

If we get a 3rd round pick for Marshawn, and then use a first round pick to replace him (Spiller) it would be like the Henry and McGahee trades all over again. This team is riddled with holes at positions far more important that running back. We need our existing first and second round draft picks to fill those holes. Any attempt to use an early draft pick to upgrade the running back position would be an extremely serious mistake. I'd maybe be okay with trading Lynch away, but only if it was understood that we would not try to replace him with a higher draft pick than whichever one we got from the trade.

I'm not on board with their decision to list Clausen as one of the riskiest picks. The article indicated he was pro-ready; and that he played under center (as opposed to in a spread offense). These factors indicate he's significantly less risky than, for example, Bradford. The argument they made for his "riskiness" was based on "physical tools." I don't buy it. How often do you see a first round quarterback fail due to lack of physical tools? I'd argue that Clausen's physical tools are every bit as good as those of Joe Montana or Tom Brady. (Not that that's saying much; as neither of those quarterbacks was all that gifted physically.) If Clausen fails, it will be because of something other than a lack of physical tools.

I agree with the patient approach you've described, and the fact that, if the Bills are to build themselves into a contender, it will be the work of several years. I strongly disagree with the approach you've suggested to the draft. Your odds of finding a first-rate QB outside the first round are slim at best. There are some exceptions: Drew Brees in the second, Joe Montana in the third, Tom Brady in the sixth, Kurt Warner as an UDFA. But the odds of something like that happening to your team are slim. Most good QBs are taken in the first round; normally in the first half of the first round. If there's a franchise QB available when the Bills pick at #9, the Bills should take him. If there isn't, the Bills will probably have to wait until next year to seriously address the QB position. (As any 2nd round pick or lower is likely to prove a waste of time.) Which brings me to my second point. You wrote that, "In my mind, your 1st rounder has to play and have an immediate positive impact." An "immediate positive impact" could cause the Bills to win some games they otherwise would have lost; thereby hurting their draft position for 2011. That's especially important if the Bills don't take a first round QB in 2010; and are thus in need of taking one of the top QBs in 2011 (like Locker). If the Bills don't take Clausen this year, and if they go 7-9 or 8-8 due to "immediate impact" guys helping our record, the chances of getting the QB problem solved once and for all could slip through our fingers. Any plan about how to rebuild this franchise needs to begin with a plan for the QB position. That plan should involve either taking Clausen this year, or writing off the 2010 season in order to be able to take a QB early in the 2011 draft. Those are the two options most likely to succeed. Any third option (such as a 2nd round QB or something) is associated with a much higher degree of risk, and a significantly reduced chance of getting a game-changing QB. During the first two years or so of a rebuilding project, my preference is to avoid immediate impact players. You want guys who typically take a little longer to learn--QBs, LTs, DL, WRs, etc.--in order to avoid losing good draft position too quickly. Being in the top ten of the draft allows you to get the kinds of players you might not see lower down. Once your quarterback and other slow-developing players start to contribute, then it's time to think about more immediate impact players such as LBs, RBs, etc.