JohnC

The comparison isn't about individual talent as it is about fitting a role. When putting together a roster you need to have differet types of pieces that fit together. What Graham does is not what Hogan does.and vice versa. The bottom line is production. With Orton as the starter his skill set is going to be accentuated. I see his productivity going up as the season advances.

Are you sure? Does that mean that there will be no more lamenting about undrafted free agent receiver he beat out???

You are smartly on the mark with your observations. He was attracting attention that allowed Dareus and Hughes to defeat their one on one battles. Although he was getting sacks he consistently had good pressure. On a couple of plays that I keyed on him he was blatantly getting held. He's also trying to be more responsible in he run game. So instead of full throttle going forward he is holding his containment. You can compare that more mature approach to Hughes who almost always goes full throttle to the qb making his side of the line vulnerable to gashing runs. I'm not criticizing Hughes. He is playing to his asset of speed and accepting the vulnerabilities that go with.

Winners win and loser make excuses. The referee explanation is a reflection of a loser mentality. It's not only a sad commentary on a battered fan base it is also pathetic. Consistent losing is bad enough but giving up one's dignity by making ridiculous excuses is embarrassing. There is no doubt that there are games in which the calls lean towards a team. So what! There are also games that calls lean against the same team. To select one game where there may be an imbalance in calls and then generalize about it makes little sense.

There is nothing "fishy" about calls going for or against the Pats It is a fiction created by fans of a team that has lost 23 games out of 24 to the far superior organization. The officiating is inconsistent for all teams. Haven't you been watching some of the other games? There has been a dramatic increase in erratic calls in general because the league was compelling referees to emphasize not having the defense "touch" the receivers and other incidental actions. It has made the games very difficult to watch. The bottom line is that bad calls and perplexing calls are happening to all teams. There is absolutely no bias in the nature of the calls. The Bills lose regularly while the Pats win regularly for the simple reason that they have a much better organization. You don't have to concoct some nonexistent legitimate excuse to explain the win differential.

Winners win and losers make excuses. Buffalo has historically been one of the worst managed (from a football standpoint) franchises in the history of the league. The Pats under Kraft have been one of the best managed organizations. It is reflected by their impressive record. That Pats have beaten the Bills 23 times out of the last 24 games. It has nothing to do with any sort of institutional favoritism. The mere discussion of this topic is embarrassing. What's even worse is that it is a frequent topic of discussion. It reflects a loser mentality. Being a loser is bad enough but buying into a fiction to explain one's pathetic record is sad and pathetic. To everyone who buys into the Patriot bias my advice is win on your own and stop making lame excuses.

Replacing a coach is easy. Fixing the player deficiencies is the challenge. Tom Brady is one of the best qbs in the history of the game. He looked across the line of scrimmage and saw Duke Williams in the defensive backfield covering his talented TE. Where do you think he went with the ball? Very often the critical issue isn't the strengths of your team as much as it is the weaknesses of your team. The problem with our weaknesses is that they are less than mediocre and can easily be exploited. I don't want to be unfair but Duke Williams demonstrated that not only should he not be on the field but he didn't deserve to be on an NFL roster. In boxing if you keep your left hand down you will continue to be punched in the left side of your face!

' He's waiting for Joe Licata to come out before he promotes any other qb prospect!

What the critics don't understand is that you respond to the situation you are in (as you noted) not in the ideal situation you wish you were in. Sometimes you get lucky. Kurt Warner was a garbage heap player who played in the arena football league. At a relatively old age he got an opportunity and seized on it. During a three or four year stint he was as good as any qb in the game, including Brady and Manning. His accuracy, quick reads and release were at an HOF level. Granted his success was over a short duration but during that period of time he led two teams to the SB, winning one. Whaley gave up a lot to select Watkins. He has shown that he is capable of being a premier player. But that expensive deal is not going to have a payoff unless the qb play is upgraded. There are no guarantees in this business other than if you don't try something out of fear of failure you will never succeed.

You can have overall top six talent yet still not be a top six AFC playoff team. The problem with the Bills roster is that its OL is performing so poorly that it is sabotaging the high end talents of its skilled players. Orton, Watkins, Woods and Spiller's talents are being squandered to a lagre extend because the OL is being overwhelmed. The Bills lost a superb DC when Pettine left for Cleveland. An even bigger loss was not keeping OL coach D'Allessandris when Marrone took over as a HC. Not only was he a good coach but he was good at assessing line talent. He is sorely missed and he is a big asset to his new team, the Chargers. In the aggregate the Bils do have talent that allows for a respectable ranking. But the negative issues, primarily OL, drown out the high end pool of talent on the team.

In the draft one mistake that many teams make is fixating on a "desperate" need instead of focusing on talent, regardless of position. Nix was determined to select a qb with a high round pick come hell or high water. And he was very public about it. Poker certainly is not a game he is suited to play. He was so concerned with not leaving this franchise without a qb prospect that he forced the issue by taking the best qb prospect in that particular draft year. The problem with that shortsighted approach is that the candidates in that year were not high end prospects, especially compared to the next year's draft. There was an overwhelming consensus by draft analysts that Manuel was an intriguing prospect who had very good physical attributes and admirable character traits. But almost everyone qualified their evaluations with the caveat that he was a developmental type prospect who would take years to be polished enough to start. Houston and Arizona are teams that had future qb needs this offseason. They went with the temporary fix with an experienced qb would serve as a bridge qb to when they finally found their qb of the future . Their approach is if he is not there, then he is not there. There are plenty of other positional needs that have to be addressed so work on upgrading the other positions with better prospects. The excruciating mistake with the Bills' approach is the nature of the qb position compared to other positions. If you are investing playing time and training in a qb that odds are may never develop then you have set the franchise back. What if over time Manuel improves to being an average qb? Is that good enough? Are you satisfied with a qb who will not get you anywhere meaningful? As others have stated I favor getting the best veteran qb we can get this offseason and then intelligently pursuing our long term franchise qb. Is Orton that type of qb? I think he could be. Ask Cleveland if they are satisfied with Hoyer at this point? I think they will say yes, although Manziel will probably question that issue!

I disagree with the way you framed the issue. No one is looking for a savior that doesn't exist. What all teams do is constantly search to improve the team and depth. Hughes didn't work out in Indianapolis but he has been an impact player for us. For the previous few years both Urbik and Pears were functional players who upgraded (to an extent) the positions they played. As far as your example of TE Tony Moeaki what was the harm in bringing him in? He had some intriquing physical abilities. The staff gave him a good look and it didn't work out. He simply couldn't overcome his propensity to being injured. DT Charles is certainly contributing. I believe we got him off of another team's practice squad. Hoyer was a long time backup in New England. He rarely got an opportunity to play. He is far from being an all-star but he is good enugh to stabilize Cleveland's offense and give them a chance to be a good team. Orton at best is a fringe qb. Not only is he a dramatic improvement over EJ he also gives the Bills a chance to compete against most teams, something that Manuel couldn't do. No team is going to give away talented players. But rosters are limited and end of the roster players and developing players for some teams can be good players for teams that have position needs. Without a doubt a team with a losing history can't afford to be dismissive of any options to getting better, even marginally so.

The only point that I was making with Logan Thomas or that type of physical prospect is that for me you either have that "accuracy" trait or you don't. I don't believe that you can overcome that deficiency no matter how hard you work at it. In the NFL the windows are so small that you have to have a natural accuracy ability to have something to work with. I was well aware that as a young college player Logan Thomas was considered a future first round pick. I live in the MD/DC area so there were plenty of VA Tech games and reports about the program. The longer he played the more evident it became that inaccuracy was part of his package. That's why he was drafted where he was. With respect to Colt McCoy he is the type of prospect who will some day make a good coach. He is a qb with a lot of smarts and a lot of physical limitations. His ilk is not worth the bother in the pro ranks. Orton is a step or two ahead of a McCoy type player because he does have an adequate to above adequate arm. At least that is how I see it.

The thing this franchise can't do is over-reach in their never ending search for a long term qb. Arizona got Palmer and added Stanton to upgrade that position (for the short term) to the level of respectability. Hoyer for the Browns is far from being an elite qb. Yet he affords them an opportunity to help that formerly lost franchise into being a very competitive team. Is Orton a Hoyer type player? He may still be a little rusty but he is in the same range of ability. In the games I have seen Orton play he is a quantum leap better (at this point) than EJ is. He knows how to play and he knows where to go with the ball. He is nothing special but he is a reasonable starter who can get the ball out to the right option if he has the time. EJ Manuel should never have been a first round pick because developmental qbs should be drafted in the second or third round, if not lower. He being rushed on the field was not fair to him nor to the team. But that is not to suggest that having him on the team is a total mistake. This staff has the opportunity to work with him and be in position to make a better judgment as to whether he is capable of being a viable starter in this league. The Pats have brought in a numer of qbs as backups for Brady and as developmental prospects. Hoyer, Mallet and now Grapola (sic) have been on their roster and some have moved on to other teams. What that demonstrates is that you should constantly address upgrading that position, even for the backup position. Your Logan Thomas type prospect is a non-starter with me. In my opinion having physical tools will never compensate for not having natural accuracy. We already have a similar prospect on our roster who I feel very queasy about. An interesting debate question is whether Manuel is a better prospect than Grapola?

What's the source of the problem? Too much attention to investing in facilities over investing in quality staff?

There is more going on with Mike Williams than expressed by the organization. He is outwardly expressing his frustrations. Marrone, who coached him in college and separated him from the program, is not going to allow a tempermental player to poison the atmosphere when the team is already in a fragile state. The rookie Watkins and second year player already have visibly demonstrated their frustrations with the offense and the qb situation. You don't need another receiver to add fuel to the timber box. Anyone who watches the games understands why collectively the receivers were upset prior to the game. It's how you handle difficlut times, not prosperous times, that you learn about one's character. I'll take the grinder, Hogan, over the more more talented but volatile Williams, especially when the team in confronted with challenging times. The last thing you want is for Williams to have a negative affect on the other younger receivers. Let's be clear about what I'm saying about Mike Williams. I'm not suggesting that he is a bad person or is intentually trying to cause trouble. The frustrations he has are understandable. What I ams saying is that his selfish attitude and emotional immaturity can be a damaging mix for this team that is trying to establish itself.

Didn't they just give Quinn an extension to his contract?

When you lose 22 times out of 23 there is a systemic reason for that: Differences in the caliber of the organizations. It has little to do with bad luck or misfortune. At the end of the year the Pats will again be Divisional winners. You and I have very different perspectives. The issue for me isn't how good the Pats are but how good the Bills are. What I took out of that game is that the Bills are not a contending team. They still have a long way to go before considering themselves a serious team. Don't bother telling what the Bills' record is so far. It is meaningless. The chasm is still very wide!

San Francisco under Harbaugh drafted Kaepernick when they already had Alex Smith who did a reasonably good job for them. Andy Reid at Philly regularly drafted a qb even when McNabb was anchored as theri starter. They got Foles in the third round. When Reid went to KC one of his first acts was to trade for Alex Smith. Smith is not an elite qb but he is a smart and effective manager type qb. The result is that the team made a major turnaround in one year with the stabilization of that position. Under Carrol the Seahawks have made numerous qb transactions searching for their franchise qb. In the year they drafted Russell Wilson in the third round they had already signed Flynn as a free agent with a very good contract. It became evident very quickly in training camp that Wilson was their best qb. Carrol had the fortitude to give the rookie the starting assignment. While all these transactions occurred Nix and this qb starved franchise were in position to snatch anyone of these qb prospects. Nix's rational for waiting before investing a high round pick on a qb was that he wanted to upgrade the team before addressing the critical position. He got it backwards. The fastest way to elevate a team is to get your qb of the future sooner rather than later. Even if you don't want to play him right away because the prospect and the team are not yet ready at least you have an opportunity to assess and develop what you have. If the prospect doesn't work out then you try again, and again. If you look at what our qb situation is with Orton and EJ you have to ask yourself what are our prospects in the not too distant future. My suggestion is that this offseason we get the best veteran qb you can find as a bridge qb and continue with your search for a long term solution. A Hoyer and Palmer type short term solution is a reasonable option while the search goes on. Maybe EJ will surprise us and come around? With his character and work ethic you know that if he doesn't succeed it won't be because he didn't try hard enough.

The Bills played a team in our division that kicked our arses. They have beaten us 22 times out of 23. Yesterday's game was a measuring stick game. We were simply outclassed. At this point the record doesn't reflect the status where the Bills are relative to good teams. You are kidding yourself if you believe that the Bills are in really good shape. They are what they are: mediocre and not moving much up the ranks. You don't learn how good you are playing against bad teams; you do learn how good you are when you play against higher echelon teams. When the Bills play against teams with good qbs (Rivers and Brady) you realize that you don't stand a chance to be relevant until the qb position is dramatically upgraded.

What this franchise doesn't need right now is more churning of staff. The problems that are on exhibitioin are mostly due to player deficiencies. Hackett is the convenient target a lot of people like to shoot at. In my opinion the critics are shooting at the wrong target. How does an OC call plays that work when the OL in constantly being overwhelmed? How many plays are in the playbook to cover up the limitations of the qbs directing the offense? A number of years ago the target of frustrated fans was Kevin Gilbride, the OC. They felt that he was too one dimensional favoring the passing game. After he left he went to the Giants where he directed an offense that twice won the SB. The primary differences between his success and failure is that one team had a respectable OL and a very good qb in Eli and the other team had a mediocre OL and mediocre qb play. It doesn't matter whether the fresh face Reich is the HC or the more grizzly Marrone is the HC. Innovative coaching approaches are not going to trump major talent deficiencies. Addressing the real need of talent levels is not an easy thing to do or a quick thing to do but it is the substative issue that needs to be addressed. Firing coaches is easy. But it doesn't solve the problem. It could just as likely create addition problems of instability in a franchise noted for its lack of stability.

It really is odd that Marrone replaced Pettine and his philosophicl approach to defense with Schwartz and his opposite approach to defense. When you have success and the players to match the philosophy and change it in the opposite direction then the thinking behind it is difficlt to grasp. The loss of Pettine as a DC was a major loss to the team. It's not just about the particular defense; it is a loss of creativity and flexibility towards the game that is very much missed.

Ralph Wilson's major failing was not in spending enough money but it was in his hiring of wretchedly mediocre people. If his football hires were at the level of his business hires this would be a sterling franchise. The hiring of Levy as a GM and then Nix, (the checkers player playing in a game of chess) were not simply bad hires but they were outlandish hires. The five years squandered were more than enough time to rebuild a hollow franchise. The shame of it is that if smarter hires were made he could have witnessed success at the end of his distinguished life.

If you can't come up with a franchise qb in over a generation then you should close shop and get out of the business. Kaepernick, Wilson, Foles, Dalton etc were on the board below the first round that were available. When you are a qb starved franchise and still avoid the opportunities that other teams seize then the problem is oneself. Those conditions that you cite have been in existence for the past few year. Excuses are unacceptable.

It is futile to go back at look at some of the lost opportunties to find a quality qb but Nix set this franchise back by years when he passed over prospects such as Wilson and Kaepernick, and to a lesser extent Dalton, who could have addressed the critical need. Passing over Russell Wilson for the "track" receiver, Graham, who would have been availability in the next round was a blunder that still haunts this bedraggled franchise.