Orton's Arm

Players experience a large number of head collisions in practice and in games. These will result in some degree of brain trauma. There are instances when a player adds to his brain trauma, for example by wrestling in his spare time. But the vast majority of brain trauma experienced by football players is football-related. You could point out that not all football-related brain trauma occurs in the NFL. But for a player to get into the NFL in the first place, he typically has to play in a prominent college program. To play in a program like that, he usually has to play high school football. If a retired NFL player has brain injuries from high school or college ball, those injuries were sustained as part of the process which prepared him for the NFL. If they were going to award players money in a case like this, they had two choices. 1) Assume that head injuries to retired football players were NFL-related. 2) Make each player have his own court case; with experts on either side arguing about how much of that particular player's total brain damage was due to the NFL. Option 2 would drag on for years, and would make a lot of lawyers and paid expert witnesses very, very happy. In the end, a jury would make a subjective judgment call to decide each player's case. If, for example, the prosecution claimed that 90% of a particular player's brain injuries were sustained because of the NFL; and if the defense claimed it was only 40%, there would be no way for either side to conclusively prove its case. Nor would any credible scientist claim to know the exact percentage; because there's just no way of knowing.

It's been a while since I'd last heard anything about this player. I'd assumed he'd gone incognito.

This technology seems to be at a relatively early stage. Could it be used to allow an off-the-field quarterback to tell the on-field QB which targets to hit? Yes, absolutely. But could it allow the off-field QB to transfer his throwing accuracy to the guy on the field? Probably not. A perfect NFL throw is the product of footwork, movement of the hips, swiveling the shoulders, moving the arm, flicking the wrist, holding onto the ball the right way with fingers. The motor control required for all that is complex: far more complex than clicking a button on a mouse. Not only that, but some throws require you to throw the ball with exactly the right amount of force. Too much force or too little, and you'll overthrow or underthrow the intended receiver. A particular throw might represent 80% of the off-field QB's maximum throwing distance, but only 60% of the on-field QB's max. If the off-field QB sent brain signals consistent with throwing it at 80% of maximum distance, the result would be a massive overthrow. A good off-field QB for this system would be someone like Fitz. He'd choose which target to throw to, and would choose it quickly. Fitz wouldn't send any information about how to throw the ball; leaving that part of things up to the on-field QB. If the on-field guy already knew how to throw the ball accurately, and just needed a little guidance about which targets to choose, this system could really work.

Of the last 10 Super Bowl winners, nine have had franchise-level QBs. Not only that, but teams which win multiple Super Bowls almost invariably have franchise QBs. The Steelers of the '70s. The 49ers of the '80s. The Broncos of the '90s. The Patriots of the 2000s. the Giants with Eli Manning. There are those who feel that the Bills don't need multiple Super Bowl wins--one Lombardi Trophy would be enough. But if you design a strategy capable of achieving multiple Super Bowl wins--via obtaining a franchise QB--then even if something goes wrong, you can still maybe achieve at least one win. Without a franchise QB, there is no margin of error. But Bangarang was making a different point than any of that. He was arguing that if your defense looks lousy, getting a better QB will make it look significantly better. Under some circumstances that might be true. If your defense is a brick wall for the first three quarters, and then becomes a sieve in the fourth; and if your offense has a ton of three-and-outs over the course of the game, then yeah. Obtaining a better QB could fix a situation like that. But if your defense looks bad from the very first snap, then your defensive problems do not stem from bad quarterback play. They will not be solved by improving QB play. At most, a good QB might allow you to mask problems on defense, for example by scoring 50 points to the other team's 40. That was the point I was making with my earlier posts.

He's not living up to his theme song.

I'm sure you remember the most recent Patriots Super Bowl appearance. During the regular season, Tom Brady and the Patriots' offense were on fire. The offense carried the team. Carried it, despite the fact that the defense set some kind of record for most points allowed. Having Tom Brady at quarterback didn't turn bad Patriots defenders into good players. Improving your team's QB will help your offense, but won't do much for your defense. If you want to help your defense, get better defensive players.

Good post. During the early '90s, the Bills had a number of superstar players; and went to the Super Bowl every year. Then the superstars began to age. Butler added a little talent here and there. A few of his draft picks worked out, such as Ruben Brown. Some of his free agent signings were good. The aging superstars, plus the other stuff, was good enough to get the Bills into the playoffs in the late '90s. Not only that, we were 16 seconds away from beating the Titans. If we were good enough to beat them, we might have been good enough to get to another Super Bowl. (As they went on to do.) Once TD took over, he decided the Bills were in full-on rebuilding mode. There were very few good, young players on the roster. Antoine Winfield and Eric Moulds come to mind, but very few other players do. The Bills' playoff appearances of the late '90s were due mostly to older players, or to younger players who had a few good years, then flamed out. Butler was not as good a GM as his late '90s records would indicate. Is the current Patriots team in a similar position to the Bills of the late '90s? If Tom Brady were to retire tomorrow, would there be enough good, young players on their roster to justify not going into full-on rebuilding mode?

Some of the quotes from the link have me concerned. ******* Judge Phillips said in a Q&A document released in connection with the settlement. ”. . . The combination of advances in medical research, improved equipment, rules changes, greater understanding of concussion management, and enhanced benefits should, and hopefully will, prevent similar lawsuits in the future.” ******* The problem with the above quote is that the NFL is not, in fact, using the best possible helmets to prevent concussions. A Swedish research group has created helmets specifically designed to reduce rotational force to the brain. The helmet consists of an inner layer, which hugs your head. There's also an outer hard shell. If you receive a glancing blow to the head, the hard outer layer will move relative to the inner layer. This helmet provides much better protection against concussions than do traditional helmets. Thus far, major helmet manufacturers like Riddell have not shown interest in licensing this technology. Nor has the NFL given this any kind of forward push. ********* Simplistic certification standards provide convenient legal cover for the manufacturers. If NOCSAE certifies a company’s helmets as safe, then the company has less risk of being held responsible for injuries. On the other hand, if that same company goes above and beyond the standards, it could put itself at risk of getting sued: Suddenly all of its existing helmets would appear to be inadequate, and worse, the company might have to admit knowing that they fell short. ********* If, five or ten years from now, this helmet technology still isn't in widespread use around the NFL, I think another lawsuit would be fully justified.

The Ravens of 2000 defense allowed the fewest points in NFL history. They didn't exactly have world beaters at QB. Tony Banks and Trent Difler combined to go five straight games without an offensive touchdown. A good QB will result in a lot more wins than a bad QB would have. But changing from a bad QB to a good QB isn't going to magically fix any aspect of the defense.

I would argue that the two greatest QBs of all time are Johnny Unitas and Aaron Rodgers. Tom Brady is probably among the top-5 of all time though, along with Joe Montana and Steve Young. The Patriots' draft of 2000 went as follows: 2) Adrian Klemm, OT. Was a backup OT for the Patriots for five years. Retired after his sixth year. 3) J.R. Redmond, RB. Six year career. Backup for all six. First three years with the Patriots. 4) Greg Randall, T. Was a backup for NE for two years, and a starter for one. Spent his fourth (and final) year in the NFL with the Texans. 5a) Dave Stachelski, TE. Didn't make the Patriots' final roster. Backup for the Saints for two years before retiring. 5b) Jeff Marriott, position not listed. Retired without making anyone's final roster. 6a) Antwan Harris, CB. Had a six year career as a backup. 6b) Tom Brady, QB. 6c) Dave Nugent, DT. Had a three year NFL career as a backup. 7a) Casey Tisdale, position unlisted. Did not make anyone's final roster. 7b) Patrick Pass, RB. Had an eight year career as a backup. No starting quality players from that draft except Brady. That makes me feel a little better about the usual ineptitude of the Bills' front office.

No it isn't. A perfect 10 looks like this: Another example of a perfect 10 is Yahoo!'s CEO, Marissa Mayer:

I was (slightly) encouraged by the following quote from the article: ******** [Leach] also said he believed Tuel had more upside than Matt Leinart and Thad Lewis, ******** I'll grant that's faint praise. But I'd rather hear that than the opposite.

This article is already being discussed here.

Quarterbacks in preseason run vanilla offenses; and face vanilla defenses. That's very different from the regular season. On the other hand, there isn't that much difference between returning a kickoff or punt in the preseason and returning one in the regular season.

From NFL.com: ******* NFL.com's Ian Rapoport reported Wednesday that "ill will remains" between Byrd and the Buffalo Bills. ****** I took the time to find the above because I didn't feel that making the thread "go away" would be fair to those who took the time to post in it.

Trading him for a 2nd round pick is better than letting him walk at the end of the year Extending him to a long-term deal would be better than trading him for a 2nd round pick Trading him for a first round pick would probably be better than extending him. My sense is that the Bills could get at least a 2nd round pick for trading him. I also think that if we don't trade him now, there's a very strong chance of losing him at the end of the year. My gut says we should trade him.

You appear to have answered a different question than the one I asked. I wrote that you are the GM of an expansion team. This isn't about which players the Bills need--it's about which players you'd most want if you were starting from scratch. Also, you can have any player you want, as long as he was active in 1998 or more recently. Whichever players you choose, you get rookie versions of those players. Barry Sanders (for example) didn't retire until after the 1998 season. If you want a RB, you could have either a rookie Adrian Peterson or a rookie Barry Sanders. I'm not sure which player you like more--but be aware that both are options. Same thing at TE: you could have either a rookie Vernon Davis, or a rookie Tony Gonzalez.

I had mixed emotions about the Dareus pick. Part of me thought that A.J. Greene could become a much better player. There were others who felt the same way, only more strongly. Far from being fools, those who advocated for Greene over Dareus have (thus far) had their statements vindicated. Marv Levy once said that once you start listening to the fans, you'll soon be up in the stands with them. The implication is that a coach or GM needs to make smarter decisions than the fans would have made, if he's going to keep his job. The smart decision back then would have been to take Greene over Dareus. Every GM has made mistakes, and I'm not going to write Buddy off over just that one thing. But let's not pretend that taking Dareus over Green was anything other than a mistake. A mistake which was probably avoidable.

I disagree with the way you're using the words "potential" and "upside." Tom Brady doesn't have great physical tools. The guy lost a foot race to Drew Bledsoe, for crying out loud! But he had a ton more upside than any other QB in the 2000 draft. Why? Because of his ability to throw the ball accurately; and because of his very fast information processing speed. On the other hand, Losman had great physical tools, but didn't have much upside. No matter what kind of coaching he got, he was never going to be able to process information quickly, or throw the ball with consistent accuracy. He just didn't get the same intelligence-related genes that Tom Brady got. We don't yet know how good Manuel or Tuel are at processing information quickly and accurately. The more time they spend on the field, the more we'll learn. At this point, I think it's too early to call either of them high upside or low upside. Their upside is undefined.

Thus far, all the votes have been for QB. I'm surprised by that, even though I voted for QB myself. I'd think there'd be someone out there who would have preferred to add a rookie Bruce Smith, Ted Washington, Pat Williams, and Bryce Paup to the squad.

Marv was only GM for two years. In his first year as GM, his first round picks were Donte Whitner and John McCargo. In his second year as GM, he used his first round pick on Lynch. McKelvin wasn't chosen until year three of the Jauron regime--but by that point, Marv was already gone. On the other hand, you are correct to point out that McKelvin was picked while Greer was still on the team. They seemed to regard McGee as the answer at one CB spot; and McKelvin as the replacement for Greer at the other CB spot.

Option 1: If I chose this one, I'd want an elite LT. I'm thinking Orlando Pace or Jon Ogden or someone of that caliber. I'd also want an overall OL as complete as possible. Maybe the Ravens OL from the early 2000s. The line which paved the way for Jamal Lewis and his 2000 yard rushing season. Option 2: If I chose this one, I'd pick the Bills defense from '98. My three defensive linemen would be Bruce Smith, Ted Washington, and Pat Williams. The fourth guy can be either a DL or an OLB, so I'd pick Bryce Paup. I'd get rookie versions of all four players. Further, Paup wouldn't suffer a career-altering injury. Option 3: There are many QBs from which to choose: Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Kurt Warner. But out of all those guys, I'd choose Aaron Rodgers. He seems as close to perfection as you're going to get. Not just in terms of throwing the ball; but also in terms of pocket awareness/sack evasion. Option 4: Deion Sanders didn't retire until well after '98, so he'd be one of the four players I chose. I'd also pick Larry Fitzgerald, Jerry Rice, and Rob Gronkowski. My receiving threats would be very difficult to defend. It's hard for me to decide which of the four options I'd like the best. I have to say, that getting a rookie Bruce Smith, Bryce Paup, Ted Washington, and Pat Williams is very tempting. But as insanely good as that would be, I think that having a rookie Aaron Rodgers would be even better.

You are the GM of an expansion team. You are presented with the opportunity to do one of the following. Whichever players you choose, you get rookie versions of those players. None of the players you choose will experience career-altering injuries, regardless of whatever happened to them in real life All the players you choose will be happy to sign extensions with your team, assuming your contract offer is reasonably competitive You cannot be fired before having had six years in office as GM. For option 4; the players you select can come from different teams/years, as long as none of the players retired before '98. For the first two options, you must choose a particular team/year from 1998 or after. For example, you could choose the OL from the Ravens of 2000, or the DL of the 2002 Bucs. In order to acquire these four options, you had to trade away the first overall pick.

Yes, Brandon was the GM after Marv. IIRC, it was Brandon who allowed Jabari Greer to leave in free agency. While using the 11th overall pick on his replacement (McKelvin).

One of the most important reasons we went thirteen years without making the playoffs is because our GMs have been too shortsighted. Look at what we've had: TD (first post-playoff era GM) In his first year, he used a 2nd round pick on a RB; even though Antowain Smith had plenty of gas left in the tank. In his second year as GM, he traded away a first round pick for another team's aging backup QB. In his third year as GM, he used a first round pick on a RB, despite the fact Travis Henry had gas left in the tank. In his fourth year as GM, he allowed Antoine Winfield to go first-contract-and-out. TD chose to squander the Winfield money on Troy Vincent and Lawyer Milloy. To someone with a win-now mentality, two aging players are better than a Pro Bowl player at a premium position, entering the prime of his career. Marv (second post-playoff era GM) In his first year as GM, he decided the Bills had to get better right away. That meant he was locked into the concept of using his first two draft picks on a DT and an SS. The result was that he squandered the 8th overall pick on Donte Whitner, before trading up later in the first round for the McCargo bust. Had Marv not been so focused on improving right away at those two positions; he could have had much better long-term players at other positions. Nick Mangold--the player Marv passed up to take McCargo--became the best center in the league. But Marv thought he was "all set" at center because of Melvin Fowler; whereas he correctly perceived a need at DT. In his second year as GM, Marv used the 12th overall pick on yet another running back; despite the fact that Willis McGahee had plenty of gas left in the tank. RBs are a favorite pick of GMs looking to make a quick impact; because they are expected to significantly contribute as rookies. Back when he was GM, Marv said that, "if you're building for the future, you're building for someone else's future." His moves as GM were consistent with that philosophy. That is why Marv's period as GM did not build any sort of future for the Bills. I'm tired of quick fixes and Band Aid solutions. I'm tired of cardboard and duct tape. This team needs to be built the right way, even if it means building more slowly than a quick fix artist would build it. A long term blueprint is essential--far more important than short-term wins or losses. Once the team is built to spec, the wins will inevitably follow.