Orton's Arm

I agree with this, and with Polian's approach. The quarterback is the most difficult to find player, so you take him first (if there's one there waiting to be taken). The next hardest-to-find player is the DE, so if it's a choice between Bruce and Orlando, I'd choose Bruce. Though I admit it would be a tough call, and that it's of paramount importance to give your shiny new QB the protection he needs. Look what Kurt Warner and Orlando Pace were able to achieve when working together! That was a really nice combination while it lasted. To address your point about the Manning/Leaf debate--I remember it quite clearly. Manning was described as the more "polished" and "NFL-ready" quarterback--the one who offered the most near-term potential, and that would be best for a short-sighted team that wanted to get good right away. But for a team that was willing to adopt a more patient approach, Ryan Leaf supposedly offered the greater level of long-term "potential" due to his physical gifts. I remember reading those descriptions and thinking that a team should definitely choose Manning over Leaf. You always want the "polished passer," and never the "project" QB with a ton of physical potential.

Good points. I just want to add a little to what you've written. Drew Brees was taken in the 2nd round, Matt Schaub in the 3rd, Tom Brady in the 6th, and Kurt Warner was an UDFA. But other than those four guys, I can't think of any good QBs taken outside the first round. Also, bear in mind that Tom Brady was chosen back in 2000, and Kurt Warner acquired in the late '90s. Those four guys represent about 10+ years' worth of non-first round QB success stories. Conversely, a good draft for QBs can see two or even three success stories in the first round. And it seems like there's usually at least one success story in the first round.

I read the Clayton article. He points out that teams at the top of the draft tend to take players at key positions (QB, LT, DE) even when there are better players at other positions. He opines that Taylor Mays is one of the three best players in the draft, but is unlikely to be taken in the top 3, because no one wants to pay top dollar for a strong safety. He also points out that some positions--most notably quarterback--have a far more influential impact on the outcomes of games than do others; thereby causing QBs to be taken earlier in the draft. He cites several defensive tackles who had good careers, but whose teams did little, to make that latter point. All of this would tend to underscore Marv's foolishness in reaching for a strong safety at 8th overall. To address your other point--about the order in which one should acquire one's QB and OL--I think the Bills should do the following. 1) Take a franchise QB at 9th overall, if there's one available. 2) Take an OT in the second round. 3) Have that rookie QB be the #3 QB his whole rookie year, just like Carson Palmer was in Cincy. 4) Have that 2nd round OT start at LT, and have Meredith start at RT. 5) Have Brian Brohm be the starting QB for the 2010 season. 6) Take a LT in the first round of the 2011 draft, have him start from day 1, and move the 2nd round OT from 2010 to RT. 7) Have the franchise QB chosen in 2010 become the starter.

Trading down is a possibility; and should be very strongly considered if there's no one we like at #9. My preferences for that pick are as follows: 1) Get a franchise QB 2) Get a franchise LT 3) Get a franchise RDE 4) Trade down 5) Get a franchise NT . . . 50) Draft a RB or a DB.

If you want to go far, you need a QB, people to protect the QB, and people to go after the other team's QB. Currently the Bills are 0-for-3. They'd be well served to go after the QB first, if there's an opportunity to get a franchise type player when the pick. Like Thurman pointed out, the focus is probably not (and should not be) on instant results for 2010. It's on two to three years out, as it should be. Marv focused on the short-term. In 2006 he had the chance to take Cutler, but chose Whitner instead! He wanted an instant upgrade to the defense--at SS and DT--and ignored the fact that there were far better players available both when the Bills took Whitner at 8th overall, and when they took McCargo later in the first round. He was open about his short-sighed approach, saying that if you prepare for the future, you're preparing for someone else's future. At first his short-sighted approach seemed to pay dividends, because the team went 7-9 despite turning over a large portion of the roster. But ultimately his tenure as a GM was an almost unmitigated disaster. Like Thurman said, our focus should be on two to three years out, rather than making the upcoming season as non-dismal as possible. Yes, a quarterback is useless if he's lying on his back. And no, we can't keep any QB off his back right now. But if the opportunity to add a first-rate QB comes along right now, the Bills should take advantage of it. In two to three years we will be able to protect that quarterback if the front office has any competence at all! And we may only have one opportunity (at most) to add a franchise-level quarterback to this roster over the next two to three years.

The Cowboys went 1-15 Aikman's rookie year. He took a ton of hits, and there were questions about whether he was the answer. He was injured often enough they dubbed him Ache-man. Obviously things improved a little for the Cowboys after that point.

Believe me, I understand that logic and agree with it! Which is why I chose the Hall of Fame QB at #1 overall. But I also tried to look at things from the perspective of someone who'd rather have a lineman than a QB. Odds are that if you trade down to #3 overall, there will still be a lineman there (offensive or defensive). I mean, sure, there's always the chance that you wanted an offensive lineman and you're getting a defensive lineman instead (or vice versa). And maybe the two teams ahead of you didn't need QBs, so you'll end up getting one at #3. But (again from the perspective of someone who'd prefer a lineman over a QB) is getting a Hall of Fame QB at #3 overall, plus extra picks, really that much worse than getting a Hall of Fame lineman at #1 overall? I'm just trying to understand why more people chose the LT and DE at #1 overall options than chose the trade down to #2 or #3 overall option.

To be honest, I'm surprised more people didn't pick the option you chose. Someone who views a Hall of Fame LT, DE, and QB as having roughly the same value could trade down to #3 overall and add some extra picks. I personally went with the QB option at #1 overall--if you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's one available, you take him. But not everyone here agrees with me on that; and I would have thought that a few of the people who don't would have chosen the same option you did.

Correct. The QB will be the next Peyton Manning, not the next Ryan Leaf. The LT will be the next Orlando Pace, not the next Mike Williams. And the DE will be the next Bruce Smith, not the next Walt Patulski.

I like the idea of using existing players to trade up. With Byrd and Wilson the starting safeties, it makes sense to include Whitner in any trade (if possible). I feel a little more ambivalent about trading away McKelvin--he's too young to have proved much, and I suspect his trade value will increase over the coming year or two. To be honest, I could be talked into a trade of 9th overall + Whitner + Lynch for the 2nd overall pick. But my intention there would be to draft Clausen (if the Bills think he's a franchise QB), and not to draft McCoy. Alternatively, the Bills might be able to trade up to fifth overall or something by using just one of those players. (Preferably Whitner.)

You're the GM of an expansion team, and you're picking first overall in the draft. Your team has few if any starting caliber players, so just about everything is a need. After evaluating the players in the draft, you're convinced that the best available QB, LT, and RDE are each destined for the Hall of Fame. Which player do you pick? Or do you trade down?

The Bills' offensive line in 2006--especially in the second half of the season--was considerably better than the putrid joke of a line that just finished embarrassing itself over the course of the 2009 season. You'll recall that Jason Peters moved to LT partway through the 2006 season and played well there; whereas in 2009 we had Demetrius Bell (and sometimes not even him!). "Opening up the offense" in 2006 largely consisted of long bombs to Lee Evans. That worked out pretty well for a while--until defenses figured out that you're supposed to double cover Evans, put eight men in the box, and dare Losman to beat you with his underneath game. That, he was seldom able to do. Losman had all the physical tools he needed to succeed. A far better set of physical tools than Tom Brady, for example. Where Losman fell short was on the mental side of the game: processing information quickly, reading defenses, seeing multiple targets in the very short amount of time between when the ball is snapped and when any NFL QB has to get rid of it. Not everyone can display the mental ability of a Peyton Manning, and Losman is one of the people who can't. I read that the offense the Bills used in 2006 was considerably simplified for Losman's benefit; and undoubtedly that helped him. But there's a reason why coaches typically don't go on using simplified offenses forever.

You made a similar point on another thread, and mentioned Losman, Rob Johnson, and Edwards as other California QBs who didn't work in Buffalo. First, let's throw Edwards out the window completely. I read that the bust rate for QBs taken in the second round is over 90% (bust here meaning, I believe, a failure to become a solid starter). Given that Edwards was taken in the third round, and given that this past season he didn't play well even in good weather, it's hard to blame that one on his lack of prior snow. Losman was drafted towards the end of the first round, at a point where there are usually a few more question marks associated with quarterbacks than earlier in the round. There were question marks associated with Losman; most notably his accuracy, mental acuity, and ability to read defenses. He had the arm strength to throw the ball well in cold weather, and I don't think he mentally wimped out because of the cold. Losman just didn't have the mental tools to be successful in the NFL, and would have failed even if drafted by a warm weather or dome team. That leaves Rob Johnson. He wasn't actually drafted in the first round--or anywhere near it, as I recall. The Jaguars initially used a relatively modest draft pick to acquire him, but later traded him away to us for a first. We traded for him on the basis of one or two really solid performances at the NFL level. The bottom line is that Rob Johnson looked a lot better with Tony Boselli protecting his blindside than he did with John Fina in that role. Johnson's main problems--holding onto the ball too long, taking too many sacks, getting injured too much, a lack of pocket presence--were not attributable to cold weather or to his lack of experience in it. If the Bills use a first round pick on Clausen, it would be the first time in a very long time that this franchise will have used a top 10 pick on a QB--which is where franchise QBs are normally taken. That doesn't mean Clausen is destined to be an NFL success--he very well may not be--but I don't believe his success or failure will have anything to do with his experience in cold weather. Brett Favre grew up in Mississippi, and played college ball in the South. He's done okay in a few cold weather NFL games since then.

Good point.

Well said, and I agree with what you've written. I only hope you're wrong about Clausen going #1 overall.

Clausen looked good the one time I saw him (against Stanford). I like the idea of the Bills using their pick on a franchise QB, if one is available at #9. If they decide that franchise QB is Clausen, then so be it! But even if they draft him and he turns out to be a bust . . . well, at least they swung for the fences with their 9th overall pick. Which is a lot better than bunting, as they did back when they took Whitner.

What is this "everything else" of which you speak, and which supposedly brings Marv's overall grade as GM up to a C+? Did this "everything else" result in better player acquisition? If so, what players? Did it result in a better coaching staff? A better front office group? Show me some form of tangible result of this "everything else," tell me what, specifically, Marv did to achieve it, and describe how it's improved this team's long-term ability to be competitive. Perhaps by "everything else" you mean that Marv's name got people excited, and caused them to buy season tickets they otherwise wouldn't have purchased. The things is that if you give people false hopes often enough, and subsequently dash them often enough, they'll eventually become disillusioned. I'll remind you that Jauron was fired in the middle of the season because the Bills' fan base was on the verge of reaching that state of cynicism and emotional abandonment of their team. As for the bad things that happened while on Marv's watch: ultimately, he bears responsibility for those things. Either for making the bad decisions himself, or else choosing the front office people who made those bad decisions for him. The only potentially viable excuse for any of that is the one someone else mentioned earlier: the extent to which the mistakes were caused by Ralph Wilson's interference. If you and your staff has targeted a future Pro Bowler for your first round pick, and if Ralph Wilson barges into the room and forces you to take a Donte Whitner or a John McCargo instead, there's not much you can do about it (except resign). But I have not seen actual evidence that Wilson has interfered to the degree that would imply.

You want to see what an ugly 3/4 defense looks like? I'll show you ugly! Imagine our 3-4 defense with this man lined up as NT. Now that's ugly! (But not necessarily in a bad way.)

I don't know enough about GMs in general to comment about Marv's standing WRT the rest of them. Instead, let's look at the resources he had and what he did with them. Free agent signings. I think we're all agreed that he consistently overpaid for second- or third rate free agents, and that there are no success stories at all in this category. Larry Triplett, Tuten Reyes, and Melvin Fowler aren't exactly the stuff of which Super Bowl legends are made. Choice of head coach. Jauron's coaching career here was a failure; and he's now a DB coach. First day draft picks: Donte Whitner, John McCargo, Ashton Youboty, Marshawn Lynch, Paul Posloszny, Trent Edwards. There's only one starter on that list--Poz. Everyone else is a failure to one degree or another--especially Whitner, McCargo, and Youboty! Second day drat picks: Most of these guys are forgettable--as is the case for other teams' second day picks as well. But a few names worth noting are Brad Butler, Kyle Williams, Keith Ellison, and Derek Schouman. Given Butler's recent retirement, Williams is the only starting-caliber player on that list. To sum up, what are Marv's success stories? Coaching: none Free agent signings: none First day draft picks: Poz. Second-day draft picks: Kyle Williams. That's not very much to show for a two year period as GM. Especially considering that Marv began his tenure here with the 8th overall pick. I'd guess that that track record places him among the bottom 5% of GMs over the last 30 years. However, I'd need to do more research about what other GMs typically achieve to feel certain about that conclusion.

The above sounds about right. The Bills have a lot of needs at what I consider "premium" positions. By that phrase I mean positions which are the most highly valued in the draft--QB, LT, RDE, NT. One could make a compelling argument that each of those four positions--and especially the first three--get filled in the first round; with a strong emphasis on players from the top 10. Because the Bills have so many needs at premium positions, they should probably steer clear of thoughts of drafting a player at an easier to fill position at #9. On another thread, someone suggested the Bills take a strong safety at 9th overall!!

Trading Whitner does not create a need for the Bills. Our current starting safeties are George Wilson and Jairus Byrd. We don't need to use the 9th overall pick to fill our #3 safety spot or our nickleback spot--the role Whitner currently has. This team should use the 9th overall pick on a critical position that's hard to fill, where we also have a need. QB, LT, NT, RDE are all viable options for that pick. If no one good is available at any of those four positions, then maybe you start looking at WRs or LBs or RTs or something. But we should not draft yet another DB with a top-12 pick!!! The only thing worse than doing that would be taking a RB at #9! I'd almost rather donate the 9th overall pick to charity (i.e., Detroit), than use it on either a RB or a DB!! :angry:

That cat's fine. The tiger cub just wants to play, and doesn't mean it any harm. Also felines in general seem to have a pretty good sense about what they can get away with in terms of roughhousing without inflicting any real harm.

Here's a video of a tiger cub . Enjoy.

The bottom line is that the Bills' offense needs both a good QB and good OTs to be successful. Not even Joe Montana can be productive while lying on his back. But an upright QB is useless unless he knows how to play! Look at the Ravens offense of 2000. They had a very good offensive line, led by Jon Ogden (one of the very best LTs of his day.) They had Jamal Lewis with his 2000 rushing yards. And yet that offense went for five straight games without scoring a touchdown, due to troubles at the QB position. Only after Dilfer wrested the starting slot from Tony Banks, and only after Dilfer improved his initial level of play, did the Ravens' offense achieve the modicum of productivity that allowed that insanely good defense to carry that team to a Super Bowl win.

In general, it's best to start off with your end goal in mind, and then build toward that goal. My end goal here is for the Bills to be a Super Bowl winner. Part of achieving that goal (almost always) involves having an elite-level quarterback. If the Bills have the opportunity to fill that need, they should take it. That said, you correctly pointed out that this team is weak in a number of areas due to abysmal failures of people like TD and Marv. There are a ton of needs on this team, and it will take a good three years to fill them all. There's nothing we can possibly do to get them all filled in year 1 of the rebuilding process; and any efforts in that direction will only lead to a series of ultimately useless and futile half-measures. During year 1, the Bills would be far better off gaining one or two permanent solutions at critical positions than a hundred Band-Aids. Suppose the Bills were to take (for example) Clausen with their first round pick, and an offensive tackle in the second. Then they could put Clausen on the bench, which is exactly where all rookie quarterbacks belong! For the 2010 season, that 2nd round OT could play LT, with Meredith at RT and Brohm as starting QB. Incognito would be re-signed. He and Levitre would play guard, and Wood (when healthy) would start at center. Then in 2011, the Bills could use their first round pick on a LT. That 2nd round OT from 2010 would move to RT. Clausen would take over as the Bills' starting QB. The defense would still be a mess, but the Bills would have both their franchise quarterback and offensive line in place. But at least the defense would get some help in 2010 with picks from rounds 3 - 7, as well as in 2011 starting in round 2. The defense would also require the first round pick in the 2012 draft--this is, after all, a three year rebuilding process!