Orton's Arm

Let's say John Butler had been a moron back in 2000, and had traded up for Chad Pennington. Granted, the team seemed to have more pressing needs than at QB. We needed a DE, so Butler took Erik Flowers in round 1. He continued to draft for defense with Travares Tillman (S), in round 2, and Corey Moore (LB) in round 3. Why waste a first round pick on a QB, Butler apparently figured, when there was still some hope Rob Johnson might be the answer? Well, guess what? The three players that might have been traded away for Pennington were all busts. Pennington himself played quite well for the Jets before his injury. The Bills, meanwhile, turned out to have been more in need of a QB than Butler had been willing to admit. My point here isn't about whether the Bills should or shouldn't draft Cutler. I honestly don't know enough about him to have a firm opinion. But dismissing the Cutler option out of hand--as you cavalierly do--isn't the approach of a competent GM.

No, I'm pretty sure he's a Titans fan. @BiPolar: Ice used to post on these forums a lot. He was strongly opinionated. I think he got banned, but I'm a little fuzzy about that.

I'm a little confused by your post. Are you saying that discrimination against white candidates outside the old boy network is less of a problem because: - Whites (even unconnected whites) are less likely to be discriminated against than are blacks? - Past discrimination against blacks means that it's a graver injustice to discriminate against a black person than a white person? If you're claiming the former, I'd suggest you were maybe overstating the importance of race, and understating the importance of connections. If you're claiming the latter, my response would be that we differ greatly on our understanding of justice.

Speaking of mindless tangents, how is the question of the Bills' starting QB relevant to a discussion about employment law?

The NFL has a clear record of discriminating against anyone without the right connections. That's a pretty broad group; one which may well include Poles. You know, it's interesting how different standards apply to different sectors. At least last time I checked, blacks were underrepresented among graduates from engineering schools. Yet the employment laws that apply to engineering companies are intended to make their workforces look like America, and not like the graduating classes from engineering schools. An engineering degree is a more critical qualification for being an engineer than NFL experience is to being an NFL coach. Yet the Rooney Rule has the goal of making the NFL look less like America, and more like the pool of NFL players. I've already discussed why this doesn't make sense in other threads. My point here, however, is that you can't have it both ways: either the employment laws that apply to engineering companies are unfair, or the Rooney Rule is unfair. I made a point, and used logic to back it up. The Dean responded with a personal attack. I expected to be personally attacked from someone, because some people are incapable of dealing with controversial topics without resorting to such measures. While I was unsurprised, I was also unpersuaded. Why should I care about fostering good feelings among NFL players? Those guys are getting paid millions to play a game they love. If a particular player isn't motivated by that, he's not going to be motivated by the Rooney Rule either.

This is the crux of our disagreement. Ultimately, coaches are human beings, and we should learn to see them as such. How can you say to one human being, "I will do my best to prevent you from being discriminated against," while saying to another, "I don't like discrimination against you either, but it's less of a problem to me because of your race."? Doesn't that seem unfair to you?

In other words, you're unable to express your disagreement with someone without questioning their intelligence. Especially when it comes to emotion-laden topics such as employment law. You've been programmed to think a certain way, and attempting to discuss hot botton issues with you is pointless. It's hard to look at you without contempt.

The things you mention were certainly hard burdens for black people. Many in the black community showed courage in the face of these burdens, and this should be applauded. But as difficult as these things were, the situation faced by the people of Poland was even worse. In 1939, the Soviet Union invaded the eastern half of Poland, and proceeded to murder one person out of every ten. Look around the league, and count the number of coaches with Polish-sounding last names. I can't think of any. Most of the arguments being advanced in favor of affirmative action for blacks could also be used to advocate affirmative action for Poles. Certainly there have been enough past injustices against Polish people. Old boy networks don't necessarily include proportionate numbers of Poles. And I have the feeling Poles are underrepresented in the coaching ranks, when compared against their proprotionate numbers in the general population. Does this mean the NFL should adopt a Rooney Rule for Poles? Does this mean Poles should be a protected minority, as defined by employment law? Of course not. Such measures would merely serve to politicize the hiring process still further; moving us even further away from a meritocracy.

I see it differently. The old boy network is a problem, not because it produces the wrong racial outcome, but because it discriminates against all qualified candidates not part of the network. It's just as discriminatory to deny a white coaching candidate a job due to lack of connections as it is to do this to a black candidate.

"Old boy" and "for the most part white" are two entirely separate issues. Think about it.

OJ is one of the worst human beings to play football, but as far as I know, he's the only man in NFL history to rush for over 2000 yards through 14 games. He's obviously the best pure runner the Bills have ever had. I'm surprised at the disrespect for McGahee. He didn't get carries or blocking, and he often faced eight or nine men in the box. Yet he still finished with over 1000 yards.

Rivers was selected 4th overall by the Giants. Then the Giants traded Rivers and a bunch of picks to the Chargers for Eli Manning; the first overall pick that year.

You could make the argument that people identify with others like themselves. So from a dollars and cents standpoint, it might help if the NFL's players had the same racial composition as the audience it's trying to attract. For instance, it will be a little harder for the NFL to attract Latino viewers, because very few Latinos play in the NFL. I don't see how they could have an affirmative action program to help white, Latino, and Asian players though.

I'm not stupid enough to believe that any QB could have led the 2005 Bills to the playoffs, let alone the Super Bowl. Point granted. However, throwing behind the same offensive line, to the same receivers, with the same people calling the plays, and the same running game, Holcomb compiled a QB rating of 85.6, while Losman's rating was 64.9. This doesn't mean Losman will never improve, but it does mean that some of the passing game's problems in 2005 were his fault. Tim Hasselbeck has bounced around the league a little. Mostly he's been a backup, but he did play in seven games for the Redskins back in '03. You might be thinking of Matt Hasselbeck, the Seahawks' QB. He compiled a QB rating of 98.2 for the 2005 season, which is pretty nearly elite level. Some of the other QBs you mention, such as Esiason, O'Donnell, and Brad Johnson, were above average for starters. But there are still a few guys like Trent Dilfer. He's a good example of what I'm talking about, actually. The Ravens of 2000 had one of the two best defenses in NFL history. Yet that team only has one Super Bowl ring to show for this achievement. Well, you say, one ring is a whole lot better than none. But take a closer look at how they came to have that ring. In the playoff game against the Titans, the Ravens won 20-10. However, ten of the Ravens' points came because of big special teams plays. Even when your special teams are good, you can't count on them to score every week, or even most weeks. Let's say the Ravens' special teams had been quiet that particular week. There's an excellent chance they would have lost that game. Bad breaks can happen to teams with elite passing games too. But because an elite passing game can be kept intact longer than an elite defense, you give yourself more chances to have a year when the breaks go your way. The question is whether Losman has the potential for greatness. If he doesn't, the Bills should start looking for his replacement sooner rather than later. It takes time for a QB to develop, so if Losman isn't going to become something special, you'd want to give his replacement as much time to learn as possible. I agree there's no excuse for the way the OL has been neglected. Teams that made it deep into this year's playoffs usually spent multiple first day draft picks on their offensive lines. The Bills aren't a QB away from having a good offense. But they might not be an offensive line away from having a good offense either. Maybe they need both.

Post 17 didn't provide evidence of anything more than a misunderstanding. Oviously, we disagree as to whose fault the misunderstanding was. I posted post #36 myself, where I cleared up the confusion. In post #44, you tried to differentiate between what I'd written in #36 (which you seemed to think was reasonable) from your interpretation of my original post (which you thought was not). To be honest, this is one of the sillier debates I've become involved in, and I don't think either of us is doing himself a favor by continuing with it. Let's just drop this.

All bluster, and no link to the "evidence" you bragged about. What a surprise.

Where is this "evidence" you're bragging about? Give me a link. Pot? Kettle? Black?

I strongly disagree. Quarterback is the most important position on the team, which is why QBs make the most money. It's very, very difficult to get to the Super Bowl without an elite level of QB play, and almost imposible to do so more than once. I challenge anyone to name a team which made it to the Super Bowl twice or more, with the same group of core players, that didn't have a very good QB. Let's look at the teams that have made it there multiple times close together: NE Patriots (2000s) Denver ('80s and '90s) Packers ('90s) Cowboys ('90s) Bills (early '90s) '49ers ('80s) Steelers ('70s) Cowboys ('70s) Notice anything in common? Each of these teams had a QB who was at or slightly below a Hall of Fame level. An elite QB alone isn't enough to get you multiple Super Bowl appearances, as Dan Marino proved down in Miami. But if you don't have an elite QB, it's basically impossible to get there more than once. So if Losman will never be more than average, the Bills need to figure out a way to upgrade his position. That means examining all their options, including first round QBs. What kind of offensive line did the Bills have when they evaluated Rob Johnson? Was the running game any more of a threat with Antowain Smith than it is with Willis McGahee? I'd agree the offense as a whole needs to be fixed, and that makes it tougher to evaluate a QB. But I think it's still possible. You worry about whether Losman is being asked to achieve the impossible. I'd just like to see him play at or above the level of Holcomb. If Holcomb is the journeyman/loser many posters seem to feel, it should be a cinch to outplay him, right? Eli Manning gave Kurt Warner a run for his money as a rookie in preseason; and I don't think it's unrealistic to ask the same from Losman in his third year here.

Obviously, you're determined to believe what you want, ignoring the evidence right in front of you. That applies both to your take on my posts, and your take on Losman. Must be nice to live in a world where wishing and believing are the same.

None of the participants deserved to be a part of the Super Bowl. Those doing the pregame hype sure didn't deserve to be part of the biggest game of the year. Nor did the Steelers, with the pathetic passing game they put on display. Nor the Seahawks, with their dropped passes, poor punts, and other things you'd expect from a 6-10 team. The officiating crew clearly didn't look like it deserved to be part of the Super Bowl. The halftime show stunk; and none of its participants looked like they deserved to be there. Whoever was in charge of putting this Super Bowl together deserves to be shot and buried in an unmarked grave. It was an absolute disgrace, from start to finish.

I don't know why I'm still bitter about that Moulds call. In my head, I realize that a win over New England would merely have cost the Bills draft position, while giving TD a better chance to stick around another year. But in my heart . . . well, finally getting a victory over New England in something other than the Lawyer Milloy bowl sure would have been nice. That blown call probably cost the Bills a win.

Both teams deserved to lose that game. In fact, none of the three parties (Steelers, Seahawks, officiating crew) looked like they belonged there.

In other words, it's ten times as intelligent as any of your posts. Not that that takes much effort.

I made the mistake of assuming the readers of my post had the ability to interpret my words with some modicum of intelligence. Sorry about the careless mistake. For those who lack this ability--or choose not to apply it--here is a "For Dummies" version of my original post: Original version: If Losman messes up in training camp and preseason, you hand the job to Holcomb. Expanded version for dummies: If Losman messes up in training camp and preseason, you hand the job to Holcomb. Unless of course Holcomb is injured, or messes up quite badly himself, or gets kidnapped by terrorists, or randomly decides to retire, or gets killed in a car accident. At that point, the QB position will probably stink for the year anyway, so you'd go with Losman on the off chance he might improve. Original version: You give Losman four games to see if he can produce. Expanded version for dummies: If Losman has four consecutive bad games, you'd go with Holcomb. If he has one good game and three bad ones, you give him through week five. If he has another bad game in week five, you go with Holcomb. If he plays well in week five, you'd give him through week seven to have another good game. For these purposes, two decent games count the same as one good one. My original point--which you apparently failed to grasp--was that it's Losman's third year, and it's about time he started giving the coaching staff a reason to believe he's the answer. Holcomb hasn't had many starts either, but he plays like a veteran because he's been around the league a while. If Losman can't get the job done in training camp or preseason, why should the Bills believe he's the answer in the regular season? The only reason I'd see would be blind hope. Of course, they say love is blind, which may go a long way to explaining your feelings about JP.

I'm curious to see how JP handles himself in the preseason and in training camp. If he messes up there, you hand the job to Holcomb. If he shows potential, you give him the first four games of the season to see how he does. If he's not producing by the end of game four, it would be hard to say when he'd start. Next year will be his third in the league, and it's time the Bills started reaping some rewards from their investment in JP.