Orton's Arm

> Deal with reality: If one of the teams coverd by ESPN Big Market had moved up to get Watkins, it would be hailed as sheer genius. > They didn't. The Bills did. So you get this story instead. Sportswriters are supposed to be accurate. In a perfect world, they'd focus only on that; without trying to stir the pot with inaccurate hyperbole. Being accurate is their job. The Bills haven't made the playoffs in 14 years. During that time, a number of negative things have been written about this team and its plans. For the most part, those negative things weren't the result of an anti-Buffalo or pro-Jets/Pats/Dolphins bias. They were the result of reporters doing their jobs; correctly predicting that most of the Bills' moves would fail. The 14 year playoff drought is clear and indisputable proof most of those moves did fail. I harbor those reporters no ill-will for having told the truth. It's the Bills' front office's responsibility to make good moves. Not reporters' responsibility to candy-coat fecal matter. I didn't read the ESPN piece because it's behind a pay wall. But if this reporter is voicing concerns about Watkins now, it's very possible he'd harbored such concerns prior to the draft. Only time will tell if those concerns are legitimate. But I think they're more likely based on his views of Watkins the player than his opinion of the Bills' front office.

> Marv was simply ill-suited for his position as a GM "Ill-suited" is an accurate, if very vague, description of Marv's flaws as GM. The point of my earlier post was to examine why he was ill-suited. TD went 5-11 in his last year as GM. Not only that, many of the Bills' starters were aging, especially on defense. The Bills went 7-9 during Marv's first year as GM. Not only that, but by the start of the 2006 season, Marv had already eliminated many or most of the aging starters he'd inherited from TD. The conclusion was that the Bills were getting younger and better. Even I partially fell prey to this kind of thinking; and I'm less prone to misplaced optimism than some. How did Marv create a happy illusion that fooled most of us--including me? Part of it was that he emphasized using his early picks on quick impact type players. Not necessarily the best football players over the long haul. The guys who'd contribute the most in the short-term. Marv was successful in doing the thing he emphasized--making a quick improvement to the team--and unsuccessful at doing something he hadn't emphasized--building a long-term foundation.

> Just because you write "win-now" next to a move it doesn't mean it was a "win now" move and more > importantly none of the post TD moves looked like they would actually help them "win-now" I remember Marv talking about how the Bills had decided to go after a DT and an SS with their first two picks. He said that those who objected to the Whitner pick should consider the fact that Whitner + McCargo gave the Bills a better combination of DT and SS than they could have had; had they taken a DT at 8th overall and a safety later in the first. I feel the reason they honed in on those two positions--while passing up better players at other positions--was because they wanted to make a quick impact on their defense. The opposite of that approach is to do what Arizona did when they took Larry Fitzgerald 3rd overall. Most mock drafts I'd seen hadn't anticipated that. Most football experts I'd heard were shocked by that move. The Cardinals had a number of needs, but WR wasn't among them. But as time passed, the Fitzgerald pick kept looking better and better. Had the Cardinals engaged in Marv/Jauron type thinking, they would have ignored Fitzgerald, while focusing with laser-like intensity on some other position of greater need. Presumably a position associated with a quick impact in the NFL: RB, SS, LB, etc.

> I mean seriously, I can't remember when I knew without a shadow of a doubt that the front office was trying to win now and not "Build for the future". I'd argue the exact opposite. - TD traded away his first round pick for an aging QB. Not exactly a "build for the future" type move. - TD also broke off negotiations with Antoine Winfield--one of his best defensive players--so that he could "win now" by signing Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy. Winfield continued to be productive long after Vincent and Milloy hung up their cleats. - Upon becoming GM, Marv announced that if you're building for the future, you're building for someone else's future. - Working together with Jauron, he decided the fastest way to win now was to solidify the Bills' defense. The two players deemed most immediately critical to that plan were a DT and an SS. He therefore decided that his first two picks of the 2006 draft had to be a DT and an SS, in no particular order. - In 2007, Marv used his first two picks on a RB and a LB--both of which are known for being "quick impact" type positions. - During his tenure as GM, Buddy Nix signed Fitz to a rich extension based on a few good games. The plan seemed to be to "win now" with a veteran, instead of building for the future with a rookie. - Only after the Fitz experiment failed did Nix or Whaley decide to use an early pick on a QB. The guy they chose fit the standard-issue profile of a first round bust: great physical traits, but without having proven himself a good pocket passer in college. Ever since the departure of Polian, the Bills have been rich with short-sighted, "win-now" type thinking. Little attention has been paid to building a solid future for the team; which is probably why the playoff drought has lasted this long. To his credit, Whaley has thus far eschewed "burn the future" type moves. He hasn't traded away first round picks for aging veterans. He hasn't adopted a TD-like, very casual attitude about allowing his best young players to go first-contract-and-out. He hasn't squandered first round picks on "quick impact, short career" positions like RBs. It's perhaps too soon to tell if he's a shortsighted GM--like all previous post-Polian Bills GMs--or if he has a disciplined long-term plan to build a real team.

> But if you're going to second guess them be more specific in your second guess. Make a statement. How about this scenario. The Bills package the ninth overall pick, plus this year's third rounder, to move up for Evans. Then they take Kuandjio in the second. With a plan like that, the Bills would still have a first round pick in next year's draft. That could come in very handy if Manuel doesn't work out. Or very handy even in the unlikely event he does. How big will the difference be between Watkins and Evans? I don't know. Evans has better height; and that's a major point in his favor. Perhaps major enough to balance out some of the other areas in which Watkins has the edge. Sometimes, you're better off with one elite player than two guys who are merely good. If the Bills put the "elite" label on Watkins, and the "merely good" label on Evans, then that might explain why they did what they did. But I'm not 100% sold on the idea those labels are accurate.

> Will you like this trade if [Manuel] tanks? I hate to give a weasel answer to such a good question. But I will--it depends. Any time you have an elite talent at WR, you want to pair him with a very good or great quarterback. A mediocre QB means the WR's talent is largely being wasted. Those who are pessimistic about Manuel--as I am--probably expect the first few years of Watkins' career to be wasted in this way. How quickly can Watkins be paired with a real QB? I don't know. If we're lucky, Whaley will draft a Pro Bowl QB two years from now. That would solve a lot of problems. It would also make the Watkins trade look like a brilliant move. The combination of a Pro Bowl QB and an elite WR can be devastating; especially if your team also has a real offensive line. But let's say the Bills experience mediocre QB play for the next ten years. In a scenario like that, the Watkins trade becomes much harder to justify. Both because the Watkins draft picks could have been used on a QB. And because an elite WR without a real QB isn't going to reach his full potential.

QB #3 is indeed this man. The point I was making with adding him to the list is that you can't just look at a college QB's gaudy stats and assume he'll successfully project to the NFL. Most Heisman-winning QBs fail in the NFL. An ideal QB prospect should be accurate, should process large amounts of information quickly, should see multiple reads before throwing, should run a complex offense, etc. A "polished" prospect is typically strong in these areas; whereas a "raw" prospect is typically weak. Below is part of NFL.com's description of Tebow: _____________ Strengths Exhibits rare character on and off the field. Is athletic enough to pick up tough yards with his legs. Was extremely productive in college. Possesses very good arm strength. Is a winning football player. Weaknesses Tebow really struggles with his accuracy. . . . Was not asked to run through pro-style progressions and struggled reading defenses, especially those with NFL concepts, in college. ___________ Here is part of NFL.com's description of Manuel: ___________ Strengths: Physically imposing passer. . . . Flashes the velocity to stretch the field and throw in tight spaces. Displays good touch on throws to each level of the field, finds receivers between defenders and drop passes over their head. Good athlete with the mobility to step up in the pocket to avoid pressure and take advantage of openings to pick up first downs with his feet. Quick release. . . . Weaknesses: Area code accuracy -- short throws are often low or wide, preventing receivers from making a play after the catch. Deep ball accuracy is uneven as well. Gets happy feet under pressure, spins to the outside to avoid the rush. Inconsistent recognizing blitz. NFL Comparison: Blaine Gabbert __________ The NFL.com article does not address the complexity of the offense Manuel ran in college. Other sources indicate it was a highly simplified offense. Manuel's college coach claimed that Manuel could have run a more complex college offense. I remember all the nice things Bill Walsh had to say about Trent Edwards. If it's a choice between proven performance on the one hand, or positive reassurances from a coach on the other, give me the proven performance!

Fixed. In a few years, it might well be possible to add names like Levitre and Byrd to lists like this.

I'm adding another QB to the list. QB C - last year in college: 213 for 304 (70.1%), 2,895 yards, 9.5 yards per attempt, 21 TDs, 5 INTs, 155.6 rating, 217 rushes for 910 yards, 4.2 yards per rush, 14 rushing TDs. SEC team undefeated in the regular season. Combine: 6' 3", 236 lb. 40 yard dash: 4.71. 38.5" vertical.

In Minnesota, the presence of Randy Moss created the illusion that Daunte Culpepper was better than he really was. That illusion caused the Vikings to extend the Culpepper experiment longer than they probably otherwise would have. After a while, the Dolphins had to decide whether to pursue Culpepper or Drew Brees. They chose Culpepper, and traded away a second round pick for him. After leaving Minnesota, Culpepper bounced around the league for a while. After leaving the Vikings, he never spent more than two years in any one spot. Things with the Dolphins didn't work out. Neither did things with the Raiders or Lions. He ended his career as a member of the Sacramento Mountain Lions; having reunited with his former head coach from Minnesota. Admittedly, players like Randy Moss don't come around very often. When they do, they're often united with top-tier QBs; such as the Jerry Rice/Joe Montana combination you mentioned. But if the presence of Randy Moss was sufficient to deceive both the Vikings and Dolphins about Culpepper, might the presence of Watkins be enough to deceive the Bills' front office about Manuel? Since Jim Kelly, the following QBs have been considered starters or potential starters for the Buffalo Bills: Todd Collins, Billy Joe Hobart, Rob Johnson, Doug Flutie, Drew Bledsoe, J.P. Losman, Kelly Holcomb, Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick, EJ Manuel. After seeing a list like that, I'm not exactly bursting with confidence that the Bills' front office is any better at evaluating QB talent than the Vikings or Dolphins had been back during the Culpepper situation. My lack of confidence has been reinforced by the fact that Manuel fits the profile for a standard-issue first round QB bust: great physical attributes, but lacking in the things you'd hope to see in a college pocket passer. Raw. A word like "raw" implies that, whatever a QB's flaws might be, they can be solved by throwing him on the grill and leaving him there for a sufficiently long time. But this is not the case. Most people--including most college QBs--lack the ability to become polished pocket passers at the NFL level. There's just too much information to be processed in too short a time. If a QB hasn't shown evidence of high information bandwidth at the college level--if he's not a "polished passer" in college--odds are very heavily against him ever becoming one in the NFL.

Positives: We got a potentially elite player in the form of Sammy Watkins We eliminated 1 - 2 holes on the OL by filling them with solid or good football players. We added talent or depth at several other positions Negatives: If Manuel isn't the answer--which is likely enough--replacing him will be more difficult. The Bills no longer have a first round pick in next year's draft. The presence of Watkins could create the illusion Manuel is better than he is. If the Bills' existing roster was combined with a QB like Aaron Rodgers, I'd feel ecstatic about the future! Are there weaknesses other than QB? Absolutely. TE is a weakness. LG is a weakness, unless our fifth round pick turns out to be the answer. But if we had a real quarterback, then the combination of QB + the significant amount of non-QB talent we do have would make this team a serious threat. A very serious threat!

The Bills haven't had a quarterback since Kelly. The Bills don't have a quarterback now. If they'd gone all in like this on a trade for a quarterback, no one would be happier than me. (Assuming the quarterback was a polished pocket passer in college; and not some "raw" guy with great physical gifts.) I suspect Watkins will be very good, but not A.J. Green good. He may be good enough to make Manuel look better than he is; thus adding one or more years to the Manuel experiment. Don't get me wrong. The Bills aren't exactly bursting with elite players. Watkins could be elite. But even if this trade makes sense tactically, I don't see how it makes sense strategically, given the Bills' quarterback situation. Of course, if I'm wrong about the Bills' QB situation, and Doug Whaley is right, then the Watkins trade makes a ton more sense.

I'd happily pay that price--for an Andrew Luck type player. But the Bills are in absolutely no position to give up three firsts for a non-QB. A boneheaded move like that could cripple the team for years.

The Irish Potato Famine resulted in 1.1 million - 1.5 million deaths from 1846 - 1851. There were several factors which, collectively, resulted in these famine deaths. The potato blight. This blight swept across all of Europe. But only in Ireland did it cause famine or famine-related deaths. Ireland produced a food surplus. Back when Ireland had been free (in the 1700s), the Irish government responded to worsening food conditions by outlawing the export of food. This measure prevented famine. During the 1840s and '50s, the British government did not undertake a similar measure. As a result, Ireland was a net exporter of food during the Potato Famine. British economic exploitation of the Irish meant that the Irish lacked the money with which to purchase their own food on the world market. Britain increased its level of economic exploitation during the Potato Famine; with new taxes intended to punish landowners who harbored starving Irish. Britain's aid to Ireland was utterly inadequate; and did not even begin to address the problem. Britain discouraged or forbade other nations from sending aid to the starving Irish. Partly this was because foreign aid would draw attention to the fact that Britain could not or would not feed starving people within its own empire. And partly this was because there were those in the British government who saw the famine as a hidden opportunity to alter the demographics of Ireland. John Mitchel wrote the following, "I have called it an artificial famine: that is to say, it was a famine which desolated a rich and fertile island that produced every year abundance and superabundance to sustain all her people and many more. The English, indeed, call the famine a 'dispensation of Providence;' and ascribe it entirely to the blight on potatoes. But potatoes failed in like manner all over Europe; yet there was no famine save in Ireland. The British account of the matter, then, is first, a fraud; second, a blasphemy. The Almighty, indeed, sent the potato blight, but the English created the famine." Ireland's population had been 8 million before the Potato Famine. As a result of starvation and emigration, its population fell to 4 million. By 1990 its population had climbed back up to 5.5 million.

> A draft is not ONLY determined by selecting "good" players. It matters who you pass up. Exactly. I'd go one step further, and suggest that a team's draft should merely be one component of a larger team-building strategy. Suppose, for example, that the GM uses a first round pick on a DB. Then suppose that five years later, the DB leaves in free agency; with the GM having made little or no effort to retain him. Even if the DB was a good player for those five years, he was not part of any larger strategy. His selection was unjustified. But suppose a team uses a late first round pick on a guy like Antoine Winfield; and suppose that team retains this Winfield-like DB for the duration of his career. A DB like that could easily be part of a larger strategy. During the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on DBs, and another 25% of their first picks on RBs. Only 6% of their first picks of the draft have been used on QBs; and only 5% on OTs. I see two reasons for this disparity: 1) DBs and RBs are easier to evaluate than QBs or OTs. Selecting a DB or RB implies less short-term career risk for the GM. This is especially true if the GM is not a great talent evaluator. 2) Most Bills' GMs have not been strategic thinkers or long-term planners. Someone with a short-term, quick fix mentality does not necessarily feel obligated to use his first round picks to obtain foundation players. A GM like that is more than happy to use many or most of his first round picks to fuel churning. A first round pick is used on a DB. Four or five years later, the DB goes first-contract-and-out. By this point, a first round pick has already been used on that DB's replacement. A quick-fix GM sees no need to short-circuit this pattern. He does not realize the pattern all but eliminates any chance he might otherwise have had of winning the Super Bowl. > There are many other idiotic moves that the Bills made on draft day, but none as bad as 2006. Below is a comprehensive list of all the things Marv did right as GM: 1) Drafting Kyle Williams. Other than that, the 2006 draft was a disaster. The disaster was caused by short-sighted thinking. Marv and Jauron wanted to add a SS and DT right away, because they were looking to make an immediate impact. They felt that Whitner and McCargo represented the best available combination of DT + SS. They should have realized that, unless they were going to take Ngata, 2006 wasn't the year to take a DT in the first round. Nor was it a good year to take a safety in the first or second round. Unfortunately, they fell in love with their own plan. They failed to change their plan to fit the facts; and seemed to hope that their own firm belief in their plan would cause facts to change to fit the plan.

> It is GREAT to see you posting again!!!!! Thanks! > I am not concerned with the "feelings" of Glenn, Manuel, or really any other player. I agree that concern for a player's feelings should never be an end in itself. On the other hand, suppose you've just drafted a good football player. At that point, it's absolutely essential you have a viable strategy in place for retaining that player for most or all of his career. There will be times when paying attention to a player's hopes for the future will give you a better chance of retaining him. If the player is valuable, it makes sense to accept this as the cost of doing business. > This was Levy/Jauron nonsense and dates back to "promising" Clements that they would not tag him. I remember that. Marv tagged him once, but promised him not to tag him a second time. That first tagging bought Marv a year during which he could negotiate an extension with Clements. However, Marv made poor use of that year. He said that he could make Clements an offer; but if he did so, it would be an offer Clements didn't like. He also failed to trade Clements during that one year window. The whole situation represented Marv's failure to either a) turn Clements into a foundation player by extending him, or b) get some value out of him in a trade. > I hope that the Bills draft a QB, blockers, and pass rushers. Imo, this is what wins football games and the lack of doing so has caused us to lose football games. If you look at the AFC East as a whole, you'll see that there was one franchise QB in Bills' history, 1.5 franchise QBs in Patriots history, 2 in Dolphins' history, and 1 in Jets' history. Every Super Bowl win, and nearly every Super Bowl appearance achieved by an AFC East team occurred when it had a franchise QB. A franchise QB is absolutely essential; and the Bills' failure to find a replacement for Kelly has hamstrung this team. If the Bills solved that problem in this draft, it would transform the next 10+ years of this franchise. An elite QB affects both 1) and 2) on my list, because he's also a foundation player. A number of years ago, I read an article by Dr. Z. The premise of the article was that a sufficiently bad offensive line can cause the entire offense to collapse. Bad run blocking will cause the running game to fail. Sufficiently bad pass protection will often result in the death of the passing game. If the offense is unable to stay on the field, that also negatively affects the defense. He then listed several teams which he felt had experienced this kind of failure. The Bills were among the teams he named. Needless to say, I agreed with every word from that article. I want the Bills to avoid that kind of failure. The way to do that is to increase the number of foundation players on the offensive line. Once Glenn signs an extension he'll become a foundation player. If they draft a good offensive lineman this coming weekend, and retain him for the duration of his career, that will be another foundation player. > Imo, this is what wins football games and the lack of doing so has caused us to lose football games. While I agree QBs, OL, and pass rushers are important, I feel players at other positions can make a major impact also. Take Larry Fitzgerald for example. When the Cardinals drafted him third overall, many raised their eyebrows. Fitzgerald didn't fill an immediate need; whereas other available players did. But Fitzgerald went on to become a foundation player for the Cardinals. A truly elite foundation player. Eventually, the Cardinals went to the Super Bowl. Their defense was nothing special. Their offensive line was mediocre at best. Their LT spot was manned by a Bills' castoff Mike Gandy. There were only two special things about that Cardinals team: Kurt Warner, and their receiving corps. Warner threw for 377 yards in that Super Bowl--the second highest yardage total in Super Bowl history. He averaged a stellar 8.8 yards per pass attempt; and threw 3 TDs to one INT. Ultimately the Steelers won that Super Bowl 27-23. But the Cardinals accomplished a lot more, and put up a much better fight, with Larry Fitzgerald than they would have without him. Fitzgerald had 7 receptions for 127 yards. I'm also reasonably certain he drew double coverage.

Good post. In the post-Polian era, the Bills have used a large number of first round picks on RBs and DBs. In the past I thought that this pattern was partially the cause of the Bills' malaise. Now I'm starting to think it may have been more of a symptom. To take a specific example: the Bills used a first round pick on Antoine Winfield. Winfield became a good football player--a better player than you'd normally expect from a late first round pick. TD had been negotiating an extension with Winfield's agent. But, a year before Winfield's rookie contract expired, TD broke off contract negotiations. He wanted to squander what should have been Winfield's salary cap space on other players, such as Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy. TD's attitude towards Winfield was consistent with how post-Butler Bills GMs have acted: they were very casual about letting their best DBs go first-contract-and-out. And very willing to use first round picks to replace those DBs. A foundation player at any position will do two things for you. 1) Give you a high level of play. Typically a higher level of play than you otherwise would have received. 2) Get you out of having to invest draft picks in that position, for many years to come. The Bills should coordinate their drafting strategy and their contract extension policy to build the strongest group of foundation players possible. If it's a choice between filling an immediate need or obtaining a foundation player, the Bills should consistently choose the latter.

I'd divide a football team into three categories: 1. Quarterback. 2. "Foundation players." 3. Everyone else. For someone to meet my definition of a "foundation player," all of the following must be true: 1. He must play at a high level. 2. He must have a long career. 3. The vast majority of his career must be spent with your team. It's difficult to build any kind of long-term advantage over other NFL teams using "everyone else" type players. To build something which will last, a GM should obtain for himself a very good QB, and a good core of foundation players. If your team doesn't have an answer at quarterback, and has very few foundational players, it's very difficult to build something. If the Bills haven't been to the playoffs in 14 years, it's mostly due to our weakness at quarterback and the paucity of foundation players. Getting a foundation player is a two part process. First you must draft or sign a very good player. Then you must keep that good player on your roster for a very long time. If your best players go first-contract-and-out, you will be extremely unlikely to build or sustain a winning football team. There is talk about moving Cordy Glenn to RT or OG; even though this would spoil the Bills' ability to extend him. There is talk about drafting a LT at #9 and moving him to RT. This, even though the top RTs are paid much less than the top LTs--a fact which would likely tempt our RT to leave after his rookie contract was done. I'm not comfortable with that line of thinking at all. If the offensive line needs more talent--which it does--the Bills should focus on maximizing the number of foundation offensive linemen; while minimizing their draft pick investment. That means holding onto Cordy Glenn for his whole career. It also means that if they draft a RT, they should also hold onto that RT for his whole career also--or at least have a disciplined, realistic plan for doing so.

One of the things I liked about Wages of Destruction was its description of Germany's food situation. Do the other two books you mentioned contain similar descriptions?

I've already read Adam Tooze's Wages of Destruction. One of the best history books I've ever encountered, on any subject. If the other two books you mentioned are anywhere near that category, I'll have to read them as well. I've also read the book another poster recommended: William Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. That book had made a very favorable impression on me at the time. But the more I learned from other sources, the lower my opinion of it became. Ironically enough, one of those other sources was the aforementioned Wages of Destruction.

I've tried two different methods of evaluating college QBs. Method 1 is to rely on draft experts to interpret the raw data for me. Method 2 is to look at the raw data myself. When using Method 2, I came away with a favorable opinion of Jimmy Clausen; much to my own embarrassment. Granted, I only watched one of Jimmy's games (the one against Stanford). I'm sure that the most respected experts watched each of his games. I imagine many of them used coaches' film, not just what you see on television. On the other hand, my predictions based on Method 1 have generally (but not always) been reliable. I do not consider myself better at breaking down football film than an expert like Vic Carucci or Greg Cosell; so there's no intrinsic reason to believe that Method 2 should yield better results than Method 1. > That being said blaming yesterday's loss on Manuel is like blaming World War II on Poland. In 1939, the French had promised Poland that in an event of a German attack, France would launch a general offensive against Germany. This promise was a lie. ************ In his post-war diaries [british] general Edmund Ironside, the chief of Imperial General Staff commented on French promises "The French had lied to the Poles in saying they are going to attack. There is no idea of it".[25] *********** The Polish government naively believed the French politicians' promises; and adopted an anti-German foreign policy. They ignored Germany's offer of a Germano-Polish alliance against the Soviet Union; and refused to return any Polish-occupied German territory to Germany. It became clear that Poland would fight against Germany in any general European conflict. Whether that justified the German invasion may be a little off-topic for this thread. The point I'm making here is that the truth is sometimes more complex than things may first appear. It's generally worth the time to take a second or even third look before making up one's mind.

> I and many others are taking turns hammering away trying to wear him down. I am much more likely to change an opinion in response to new data than because of social pressure. I acknowledge that you and others have presented data and/or reasoning with which to support your positions. But some of it is flawed. For example, one person sees sack percentage and so forth as a proxy for information processing speed. But what if a QB consistently checks down if that first read isn't open? A QB like that hasn't demonstrated much information processing speed. A better measurement is the eyeball test. If the offense looks wide-open--if you get the sense that the QB will throw the ball to any given open target; regardless of whether he's the first read or the fourth--and if you see the QB actively looking at several different targets each play; then these things are typically a good sign of information processing speed. > Right now he is very invested in his bandwith paradigm. Bandwidth is certainly a very important part of what I look for. Another part is a consistently high level of accuracy. A third is touch. A fourth is timing: the ability to hit the receiver in perfect stride. These are probably the four most important things I look for. My position on these things today is very much the same as it was in 1998; when I strongly supported Peyton Manning over Ryan Leaf. > If he is as open-minded as I think he is he will eventually come around. Whether I "come around" or not will depend a lot more on EJ than anything written here. At this point in his career, Manuel's play doesn't look the way franchise QB play should look. His stats--as measured by yards per attempt--are roughly comparable to those put up by Trent Edwards. If a year or two from now he's "developed" and those things have changed, I'll be the first to say so. Okay, maybe not the very first, but certainly early enough! To answer a question you asked in an earlier post, I think it's extremely unlikely the Bills will use a first round pick on a QB in next year's draft. I'm used to this franchise doing things less well than some of the more intelligent and well-informed fans would do them. For example, there's no way a guy like Bill from NYC could have been convinced to squander the 8th overall pick on Donte Whitner! A discussion about what the Bills will do is different from (and often bears little relation to) a discussion of what they should do.

> My posting history here suggest otherwise. I've disagreed with countless opinions around here over the years and have benefitted greatly from different points of view. For every time I've seen you engage in the kind of interaction you've described above, there have been at least five times when you've acted condescending toward someone for having a different opinion than yours. You may not realize how dogmatic you come across. Take last year's discussion about Wannestedt for example. It was crystal clear to you that the problem with last year's defense was the players. Not the coaching by any means. The players only. To your credit, you did say a few things in support of that point, instead of just presenting an unsupported opinion. But you came across as though your own arguments were the only thing you could see. When others pointed out that the defense might have benefited from a little extra creativity or unpredictability, the point didn't seem to register with you. Or if it did register, you didn't communicate that fact. You seemed just as frustrated with those who disagreed with you as you would have been with someone who believed that 2 + 2 = 5. The problem with committing so firmly to such a one-sided view is that if you're wrong--as you were about last year's defense--it's hard to backtrack. I'm not trying to suggest that I'm right 100% of the time either, because I'm not. If you want to have reasonable discussions with me, fine. But going into that, there needs to be an understanding that neither of us will disrespect the other; that we're both capable of being wrong, and that no one's unsupported opinion should be confused with fact.

> Why is it you avoid answering my requests for additional insight from you? Because you are not the kind of person with whom I enjoy having discussions. Because I know that if I did try to have a reasonable discussion with you, you'd just roll your eyes at any opinion with which you disagreed; while offering no contradiction beyond your own, unsupported opinion. Because the question you asked me was immediately followed by the mocking words "Onward Christian soldier." Because the question you'd asked had already been addressed earlier in this thread. Need I go on, or do you get the hint?

You are supposedly one of the more knowledgeable people here. If that's true, why is it that your posts typically contribute zero or negative amounts of insight or wisdom to any given discussion?