Orton's Arm

You call Eli "just average then (and now) but his stats say otherwise. This past season, he threw for over 4000 yards, had two TDs for every INT, had 7.9 yards per pass attempt, and a QB rating of 93.1. To put those numbers into perspective, Tom Brady, over the course of his career, has averaged 7.3 yards per pass attempt. Is your idea of "average" "exceeding Tom Brady's career performance, but only by a moderate amount?" I'll grant that, during the regular season of the Giants' Super Bowl year, Eli Manning's stats weren't as good as they were in 2009. In fact, his mediocre performance during that regular season was one of the reasons that team only went 9-7. But Eli stepped it up during the playoffs; and looked a lot more like the Eli Manning of 2009 than the Eli Manning of the regular season of 2006. Had Eli not increased the level of his play, the Giants would not have won the Super Bowl that year.

The Bills clearly need first-rate players at a number of key positions before they'll be a serious threat to do something in the playoffs. Any given player you draft is only going to fill (at most) one of those holes. My inclination is to fill the hardest-to-find positions with the earliest picks; while using later picks on positions that are easier to fill. That means QB first, LT and RDE next, probably NT, RT, WR, and even C after that. The Bills will probably need to fill two or three of those holes for it to have a significant impact on their winning percentage. For example, getting a QB alone won't do us all that much good until the OL is fixed. Suppose, however, that the Bills were to take Clausen in the first, an OT in the second, and an interior OL in the third. Then next year they could take a LT in the first, and trade back into the first round (using their 2nd and 3rd round picks) to grab a NT. At that point (assuming Clausen is a franchise QB), they'd have a real QB lining up behind a first round LT, an interior OL of Levitre, Wood, and the 3rd round pick, and a 2nd round RT. Plus that late first round NT taken in 2011 would strengthen the defense; especially against the run. This is not to suggest the Bills could solve all their problems by the start of the 2011 season. They'd still need a #1 WR to line up opposite Evans, a RDE, a rushing OLB (unless Maybin works out), and help at one or two other positions.

I disagree with the bolded statement. It was glaringly obvious that ND's offense was always a threat to score, despite the lack of an offensive line. That gave the team the potential to come back, even if it was down by a score or three. If individual defenders decided to slack off a little anyway, their decision can in no way be blamed on the quarterback.

The bolded text is one of the reasons I don't want to see the Bills take a running back this year. The Bills are a rebuilding team. Because they're at the beginning of the rebuilding process, it makes sense to take a position that's associated with a long learning curve and a long career span. Quarterback. Left tackle. Even WR! The goal is not to improve quickly here. The only thing a quick improvement does is to hurt our position in the 2011 draft. The goal should be to assemble as many long-term answers as possible, at the most critical positions we can address. If there's a QB worthy of the #9 pick, the Bills should take him. If not, a LT. If there's no one the Bills like at LT at #9, then take a defensive lineman. If there are no NTs or RDEs the Bills consider worthy of the #9 pick, they should trade down. If there are no good trade-down offers on the table, they should consider an OLB or a WR. RB is one of the last positions they should address!! Once the Bills are a few years into the rebuilding process, things will be different. With a franchise QB, a franchise LT, a #1 WR to line up opposite Lee Evans, a stronger defensive line than we have now, and an answer at rushing OLB, this team will be able to afford a first round pick on a RB. The fact that the RB will be able to contribute right away will be useful, because by then so many other pieces will be in place. The RB's short career span won't be as big a problem, because the (comparatively) short window of his career will coincide with the window of opportunity for the team as a whole.

I'm largely on board with this way of thinking. As you say, a team can find a respectable RB later in the draft. With Lynch and Jackson on board, RB isn't a need in the first place. Using a first round pick to try to upgrade a position of non-need is a luxury this team can't afford. Just to add to that: the four hardest-to-fill positions are QB, LT, RDE, and #1 CB. If you don't find answers in the first round (usually the first half of the first round) odds are you won't find any answers to those positions at all. Of those four positions, the Bills have holes at three. (Or two, if you consider the DE we just signed a long-term answer.) If the Bills don't plan on using their top-10 pick to fill a hole at one of those hardest-to-fill, most critical positions, then when exactly are they planning on addressing those holes? How far could this team really go with a fantastic RB but no QB or LT? When you bear in mind that RBs' careers aren't that long anyway, and that a fantastic RB wouldn't be that much of an upgrade over the tandem we have already, in no way, shape, or form does a RB at #9 make sense. If on the other hand the Bills can get the QB position finally taken care of--perhaps with someone like Clausen--then that's a major building block to a strong offense over the long-term. The New England Patriots won the Super Bowl with Tom Brady at quarterback and Antowain Smith at RB. I don't recall any Super Bowl wins for the Detroit Lions with Barry Sanders at RB and second-rate players at QB.

How many opportunities in the regular season has he really had? When given the opportunity to look good--in the preseason--he excelled. A few years ago, the Jauron coaching staff kept Fred Jackson on the bench in order to give all the carries to the A-Train. So the fact that they didn't see fit to put Steve Johnson on the field during the regular season doesn't convey much information to me. Once he starts failing to make the most of the opportunities he's given, then it would be appropriate to start talking about cutting him. So far that hasn't happened. On a team with no proven talent at WR not named Lee Evans, it makes sense to give Steve Johnson a legitimate shot to prove what he can do. A legitimate shot; not the kind of "chance" Jauron would have given him. If he messes up that chance, then maybe you think about moving in a different direction at WR.

"I have come to bury Jason Campbell, not to praise him . . ." I agree that the article did a much better job of making the case for trading for Jason Campbell than it did making the case against. But . . . dare I say it . . . I have mixed feelings about Jason Campbell. The article made him sound good. But his asking price is a fourth round pick, and I don't see a whole lot of teams queued up to trade for him. After four years in the league/the chance to prove himself, I'd expect more interest from other NFL teams than just that. At least, if he had the potential to be the long-term answer.

Kurt Warner had the Bills' very own Mike Gandy at LT. Arizona's offense did okay. Clearly the Bills need a LT. Ridiculously badly, in fact. No arguing that!! But QB is harder to fill, and more important, than LT. So if a QB worthy of going 9th overall is there when the Bills pick, they should take him. Period. LT will need to be addressed soon, and in a big way. Possibly, the Bills could use a second round pick on a LT this year, and a first round pick on LT next year. Then they could move the second round OT from this year to RT.

Hostetler may have been a backup while he was with the Giants, but he later went on to prove himself a solid starter. As for Dilfer: the Ravens had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. And they had Jon Ogden at LT: a guy who played at or near Hall of Fame level. And they had Jamal Lewis and his 2000 rushing yards for the season. So if you think the Bills can be the next Ravens on defense, and can have the next Ogden-style offensive line, and can have the next 2000 yard rusher/Jamal Lewis at RB, then yeah. They can get away with a Dilfer at QB if they do all that. But note one thing: the Ravens only won one Super Bowl despite all that other stuff. Largely because of their weakness at QB. As for Eli Manning: this past season he had 7.9 yards per pass attempt, a QB rating of 93.1, and threw for 27 TDs to just 14 INTs. Not exactly chopped liver. He didn't play as well as that the year the Giants went to the Super Bowl, which is a big reason why they only went 9-7 in the regular season. But Manning stepped it up in the postseason, and played very well. Which was a big reason for the Giants' Super Bowl win.

YEEESSSSS!!!!!!! I would love to see the Bills take Clausen. We haven't had a franchise quarterback since Kelly hung up his cleats. We haven't won a playoff game since Kelly retired either. Funny how that works.

I really, really really hope the Bills don't even consider taking a RB at #9!! If they're as boneheaded as that, what hope do we as fans really have? This team has bigger holes, at more important positions, and positions associated with much longer careers than running backs. We need a quarterback, left tackle, nose tackle, right defensive end, and a #1 WR. All of those needs--with the possible exception of the WR--are at positions that are more important than RB. When TD became general manager, he kicked off his reign by using a 2nd round pick on Travis Henry, in an unnecessary and ultimately failed attempt to find a significant upgrade to Antowain Smith. When Marv first became general manager he stayed quiet on the RB front for a year--there were defensive backs he had to gather in first. But going into his second year, he used the 12th overall pick on Marshawn Lynch!! Running back is the absolute last position I want to see this front office address at #9--even worse than defensive back!! :angry:

A very nice post! I agree with your thought process, with this exception: I don't necessarily trust the Bills' front office to do a better job of evaluating quarterback talent than other experts. Many of those experts are very strongly convinced Clausen is the real deal. As for the post from NEVERGIVESUP, it's possible that he either was fed, or deliberately chose to create, misinformation about the Bills' real opinion of Clausen. Of course, if everyone is going to believe the opposite of what the Bills say, it makes sense for the Bills to sometimes communicate true facts, knowing their statements will be seen as a smokescreen. There is also the possibility that there was no smokescreen or deliberate deception involved. All that stuff aside, I agree with you general point that it's worth paying a very high price for a franchise quarterback.

3.5 seconds, you say? It seems like I've heard that number before. . . . But all kidding aside, I think that there's very little chance of Edwards ever becoming more than just a below-average QB. I secretly hope the Bills draft Clausen.

This team has very few dominant players, and almost none at key positions. There are no dominant players on offense. On defense, you could maybe argue Byrd because of his ball-hawking skills, possibly McGee, and maybe one or two other guys. But very few. We need to fix that problem. If you were to add a dominant quarterback--a Matt Ryan--to the offense, and complement him with a dominant LT and a dominant #1 WR, the Bills would have an offense! A real offense. On defense, the Bills need a dominant guy at NT, another at RDE, and a dominant guy at rushing OLB. The way I look at it, we're six dominant players from having a very good football team. If the Bills can get one dominant player in this year's draft--at the hardest-to-fill position--and can then follow that up by getting two dominant players in next year's draft, we'll be halfway to where we need to be!

Levy's mistake was that he chose the wrong players. Partly that was because he preferred to reach for "need" at the positions he thought he had to fill, instead of taking better players at positions he (incorrectly) believed he'd adequately addressed. The other problem was his short-sightedness: he wanted players who could contribute right away. Linebackers. Strong safeties. Running backs. Guys like that. Forget about using early picks on quarterbacks or offensive linemen, because they take too long to develop! If a guy like Clausen is a franchise quarterback, and if trading up with Washington is the only way to get him, then you trade up. A franchise quarterback is easily worth the draft day pick price it would take to get him. Quarterback is the most important position on the field, and is also the hardest to fill. Getting that problem solved would make so many other things that much easier!

I know this may seem like nit-picking, but I was very specific in my earlier post. I was only referring to guys who'd a) proved themselves with one team, b) got traded to another team, and c) proved to be the long-term answer with that second team. Brees was not traded, because he hit free agency. Same for Brad Johnson. As for Chad Pennington: by the time the Dolphins got their hands on him, he was too old to be the long-term answer at QB. He was a nice stopgap measure, nothing more. I agree with your point that there are no Drew Brees or Brad Johnson caliber players in this year's group of free agent quarterbacks. The fact that Todd Collins' name is being thrown around as a possible signing tells me all I need to know about what our options are like in free agency!

If a guy's as proven as all that, why would his prior team want to trade him away? You can show me a few examples of guys who got drafted by one team, maybe even rode the bench for a while, got traded, and went on to success. Elway. Favre. Guys like that. But those trades all happened before the players in question had proven themselves on an NFL field. How often does a QB a) prove himself with one team, b) get traded to another team, and c) turn out to be the long-term answer for that second team? The most recent example I can think of where all three things occurred was in 1967. That was the year the Bills traded away Lamonica to the Raiders. Even then, Lamonica had only been Kemp's backup while in Buffalo, but played while Kemp was hurt or ineffective. So it's not like he was as proven as a full-time starter would have been. A QB you acquire in the first round of the draft might be the long-term answer for which you're looking. A field-tested NFL QB acquired by trade isn't going to be. Period, end of story.

We made the trade for Bledsoe in the 2002 draft (the same draft that netted us Mike Williams). In order to get him, we had to give the Patriots our first round pick in the following draft (2003).

Hardy only had that one good season. Granted, it was a monster of a season. But Nix has said that the kinds of players he's looking for are those who've proved it over multiple college seasons. Does that mean Hardy is destined to be a bust? Not necessarily. But neither have I seen anything to indicate that he will be successful on the NFL level. The Bills have a million other holes to fill, and with the recent departure of TO there's certainly room for Hardy on the roster. So let's keep him around for the year and see how he does. But if in a year or two he's still on the bench/unable to crack the starting lineup, we'd have to start thinking about labeling him a bust.

I'd like to address your bolded text. Especially in today's pass-friendly NFL, teams that have franchise QBs have a very strong advantage over teams that don't. Typically, when you invest a first round pick in a QB, you give him a several year chance to prove that he's the man. If at the end of that time he's blown his chance, your team has been set back because 1) it does not have a franchise QB, and 2) it does not have some first round QB on the roster in the process of becoming that franchise QB. The problem with taking a first round QB and having him bust isn't just the loss of the first round pick. It's the loss of the opportunity/incentive you otherwise would have had to address the QB position. To give an example, the Bills had the 8th overall pick in the 2006 draft. They could have used that pick on a QB like Cutler. But they still had thoughts that maybe Losman might be the answer, and in any case they felt they had to have a strong safety right away, and that he had to be taken early. In that situation, we ended up squandering the 8th overall pick on Donte Whitner, plus we delayed addressing the QB position for another year. Then in the 2007 draft we tried to address QB on the cheap, using a 3rd rounder on Trent Edwards. (Because, of course, finding your starting QB is far less important than a defensive back. Obviously.) The Trent Edwards experiment delayed the search for our starting QB by another two years (2008 and 2009). To make a long post short: losing an early draft pick on a QB/bust is, in itself, no worse than losing an early pick on a bust at any other position. The real harm comes from the delay in the search for your franchise QB. But a QB chosen in later rounds can also delay your search for a franchise QB, as Trent Edwards has shown us. Because that delay is so harmful, you really, really want a QB who's likely to be the answer, as opposed to a guy who looks like he might be the answer for a while but ultimately proves he isn't. Your odds of finding a real answer at franchise QB (as opposed to another mirage) are the best in the first ten picks of the draft.

This is a well thought-out, well-expressed post. But I'm not 100% sold on the conclusion you've reached. Good leadership requires not just a good leader, but also followers capable of being led. You could take the best leaders in human history and, if you surround them with people who just aren't motivated to do what they're supposed to be doing, don't have passion, etc., those leaders would be helpless. Clausen very clearly played well himself. Given that his team never lost a game by more than 7 points, and given that the defense was lousy, the offensive line was chopped liver, and the skill players were often hurt, that says something about the level of play that team was getting from the QB position. For some players, knowing that your QB will do a good job, game after game, playing through injuries, etc., is motivation enough. Perhaps Clausen wasn't surrounded by very many of those types of players. Maybe the guys he was surrounded with needed more leadership than that--from him, from the coaches, from someone. Assuming, of course, that any amount of leadership would have been enough to have gotten them to play good, solid, motivated football on a consistent basis. An anti-Clausen article I read stated that there were times when he tried to motivate the offensive line, but that the offensive linemen came away unmotivated. Was that his fault, or was it theirs? Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that this criticism of Clausen is valid: that he isn't good at convincing the players around him to play their best. And that no amount of coaching or outside learning/training can help him overcome that limitation. Might we consider drafting him anyway on the basis of his own, very strong individual play, with the idea of assigning the task of player motivation to someone else? The coaching staff, a few veteran locker room leaders, people like that? Edit: the fact that several of Clausen's classmates have come to his defense, and have defended his leadership, significantly lessens (but does not eliminate) my concern over that portion of the package he brings to the table. From what I know about him, I think he'd be a very good selection for the Bills. (Though my knowledge is incomplete.)

I fully agree with his main point, which is that the Bills shouldn't trade away an early draft pick for McNabb. But there's one statement he made with which I take issue: The Bills had gone 3-13 in 2001; which was the season immediately before they acquired Bledsoe. A 3-13 record does not spell "no glaring needs except quarterback," at least not to me. The decision for that 3-13, rebuilding team to trade away a first round pick for an aging veteran QB was not the result of "sound thinking"! It was the result of boneheaded thinking!! Boneheaded thinking which I hope Nix and Gailey are disciplined enough to avoid this time around with any would-be McNabb trade.

Maybe they're soccer fans or something.

I went with seven wins using much the same logic. I figured that maybe one week we'd encounter a team riddled with injuries, and perhaps a few weeks later a team that wasn't playing nearly as well as it had been projected to at the start of the season. Then there's probably going to be a game where the Bills get a little lucky and have a few breaks go their way. Stuff like that. Plus the Bills will probably add a few more stopgap players either through free agency or the draft; allowing themselves to throw a reasonably credible team together. Like you said, enough to keep us well out of the top 5 of the draft, but not enough to sniff the playoffs.

Other than Lee Evans--who's a very good #2 WR/deep burner--what proven commodities do the Bills have at WR? There's Hardy--who looks like he could be a bust. There's Steve Johnson, a 7th round pick who's looked good in the preseason, and in his very limited playing time in the regular season. But let's face it: a guy with maybe a dozen or so career NFL receptions has a long way to go before he proves himself the next Andre Reed! And there's the diminutive Roscoe Parrish, who is more of a gadget player and punt returner than he is a viable option as a receiver. WR is a gaping hole on this team. However, there are other, even more important holes--at QB, LT, NT, etc., which can and should be addressed first.