BillsBackersChicago

Ur not so good at the sarcasm, are ya?

ur cherry picking with the best of them. Ur picking the worst of his stats. Let's kick out his worst game (last week) and best game (jets) and look at the rest of the games he's played. Qbr 88, 94, 95. Yards 283 299 308. Completion percentage 63 70 72. Btw, his worst completion percentage came during his "best game" And by the way, a receiver does not "gift wrap" a td unless he's standing still in the endzone. A go route is not an easy pass to complete. Just look at how many times EJ missed a wide open marquise or TJ graham. Orton had a bad game. Get over it. Despite the sacks and the picks, he's been pretty damn good up until now which is why his qbr and completion percentage have been ranking among the best qbs in the league. Look at ej's stats and orton's stats this year and then tell me why u don't have ur head completely up your rear end for making a statement like that? How dare you speak reason in this kingdom?!!!

Twice this season he has thrown 43 times in a game. First time qb rating was 88, next time 95, completion percentage? 70 and 72, yardage? 283 and 308 yards. Both wins. Really think 5 more passes make a difference? Stop just flapping ur gums and look up your assertions before you start spewing nonsense. Yes he was inaccurate this game, as evidenced by the loss and his stats. He put up a relative stinker. But his qbr was still over 80 and completion percentage still over 60. Oh and by the way, when he did only throw 17 passes, his completion percentage was below 60 for the first time this season so there goes ur theory that fewer throws mean more accuracy You really have no clue what ur talking about.so just stop. I admit I haven't watched him all his career, but my cousin went to purdue so he has. He has always maintained that the guy has a very strong arm. What makes you say otherwise? He has not had trouble getting the ball downfield this year.

b!+ch

Does sal also write for the sports exchange or does the sports exchange have the right to just cut and paste from other paper's articles? I ask because this article on tsx http://www.sportsxchange.com/tsxfiles/?page_id=211&max_colums=20&story_id=92087 Is literally lifted out of this article by sal Maiorano (sp?) from the d and c http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/football/nfl/bills/2014/11/03/kyle-orton-bills-qb-future/18437119/ Sorry for the non live links. Posting from my phone. It's literally word for word with minimal to know attempts to hide the copying so it's not a coincidence or someone who is trying to be sneaky. Anyways, just wondering if anyone knows what the deal is. Surprised d and c would allow one of their articles to be used like that rather than getting the traffic themselves (unless they are getting well compensated). if it's just sal writing for another outlet, that is some lazy journalism just rehashing an article you wrote before. Glad the bye week is over. I'm getting bored and reading too much.

Good stuff. The link I gave at the beginning comes to the same conclusion (expect 24 points). The data from both articles is based on your chances of scoring from a given distance from the end zone. The article I linked just uses the data to conclude the points that should be scored off turnovers while no saint's article uses the same data to conclude the points to be scored in general (regardless of whether u got their from turnover/punt/etc). It's essentially the same analysis. What is interesting to me is that my article uses data from several seasons prior to 2003 while no saints article uses data from 2000-2010. Given how much the league has changed to a pass heavy high scoring one, I am surprised that the calculated expected points (24) is the same. Thanks to everyone who did the legwork to post the actual drive starting positions and did the calculation of how many points were expected based on those starting positions. impressive that the mid 20's number (or 24.1 per no saint) still holds. It's nice when real life fits the model.

Thanks for the support, That being said, I did find a flaw in my argument. In the article they disregard the extra point as a forgone conclusion but the 20 points we scored includes extra points after TDs. I have no desire to figure out how incorporate extra points in, so I am just gonna give that disclaimer and move on. racist. I completely agree, reality is a total drag. and come to think of it, I am OUTRAGED by that fact

yes, harder to move the ball, but easier to score points. That's not my opinion, that's what the data that I provided shows. On the second point, I agree, I think the offense scored just about what we should have expected Yes, that would be nice, and I suppose anything less is a DISAPPOINTMENT, but so is not winning the Super Bowl every year, but I don't think anyone would expect us to do this. I just wanted to see what a REASONABLE number of points would be. ok then

So we scored 20 points off 6 turnovers against the Jets. I was getting very frustrated in the first quarter that we weren't scoring off the picks, but as I look at the final statistic, I am not entirely disappointed. It got me thinking, how many points SHOULD we be scoring off turnovers? I found this article from football outsiders where someone analyzed this and figured that all turnovers should equal roughly 4 points. http://www.footballo...-turnover-worth The way they came to four was by combining the effect of the turnover if you were on offense and the effect if you were on defense. This does not apply to what I wanted to know for the Jets game but they also noted that the number of points off turnover depend on where on the field the turnover occurs in a range from 2 to 6 points. Because I can't remember exactly where each turnover occured and our average drive start was around the 49 (IIRC), I am just splitting the difference and saying that we should have had roughly 4 points for each of the turnovers our defense created. So with 6 turnovers, we should have scored 24 points off turnovers. Now they mention that the number of points that a team scores off turnover also depends on the quality of the offense. Since we know our offense is not a high powered Broncos like offense, and may be a bit below average, I don't think that it is completely ridiculous that we only scored 4 points less than expected (one turnover's worthhttp://espn.go.com/n..._/stat/givetake). BTW - They talk about the 2003 bills as an example of how turnovers and field position turn into points even if the offense sucks. Because that article is from 2003 (but uses several seasons worth of data), I wanted some updated info. Looking at the table below, it looks like the bills are 10th in the league in net points off turnovers (given up vs taken). In terms of the number of points our offense has scored off turnovers (since defense has created turnovers but has not scored off any (IIRC) we are fourth in the league. http://www.sportingc...tatistics/2014/ This is not surprising as we currently lead the league in turnovers and have only an average/below average offense http://espn.go.com/n..._/stat/givetake Anyways, point is, it turns out out offense did not score enough points off turnovers in the Jets game, but they were not far off the mark and if we are realistic about how good our offense is, then they probably did just what they were expected to.

FYI - You have to hold down the SHIFT key firmly if you don't want your !'s to turn into 1's.

Oh thank god this was a joke. I could not have handled another thread like this. I'm only sad because someone is going to post this exact thread and not be joking tomorrow.

Very cute picture. More importantly, THAT's why his name is SDS!!! Scott D Sarama!!! I'm assuming he's ok with you blowing up his personal identity? I know this makes me a dork, but whenever I hear SDS I think of the highly powerful detergent.

Ur a pats fan, you'll root for whatever team in the northeast region is having a winning season at the time and then SWEAR that you have loved them since you were a little kid. Go troll somewhere else. The fact that there is a bills bar that is literally carved into and part of Fenway says all you need to know about how "die hard" New England fans are.

Ur being too gentle with your assertion. My argument would COMPLETELY fall apart if you applied hard stats to it. As I said later in the thread in reference to the qb comparison (#5 I believe), the bad of one team's component (be it qb, guards, secondary, etc.), may be much worse than the bad of the other teams corresponding component. It's just that the overall characteristic of the components are similar. (We're talking qualitatively, not quantitatively, and I am talking about the view from 10,000 feet, not the nitty gritty details. As such, I am using comparative terms on purpose. i know they are not the same team. They have different levels of bad, different levels of good for any given component of the team. Even if they were the same team you could never compare them given the different schedules they have played. Anyways, I just thought that it was interesting that in a lot of ways, these two teams have many similarities.

link comment share....

or this...

Fair point and to add to it, this secondary and defense as a whole really misses Aaron Williams, they have been much more cohesive with him on the field. Hopefully he gets back soon. Duke williams is a hot mess, hopefully he starts to put it together, and I recognize that he has been pushed up the depth chart ready or not due to the williams injury, but I see him as a liability at this time. I love Robey, flaws and all, and I agree that the key is to use in him in the right situation where his limitations cannot be exploited.

Maybe, although if you had to pick a weakness of our D, wouldn't you say it was our secondary (not the front 7)? Great passing D vs great passing O should result in a mediocre day for both, but if I recall, against New England and Chargers, the balance was definitely in favor of the offense. I am not counting Detroit because I think Stafford is up and down and was missing his game changing receiver that his offence is based around.

See that's just mean. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that its mean. To be honest, the little I have seen of MV this year it looks like he is not even trying. Like he has been told that he cannot win the starting job and so he is gonna collect his check, give a half ass effort when told to go in, and do what it takes to not get injured. It's always fascinating to me how players like Vick can have amazing seasons like the one he had in philly and then now be SO PUTRID. Assuming it's age, or system, but it is really striking how drastic the change can be. Carson Palmer did something similar. Not really, I've been doing that all season, and all offseason, and all last season...and... Well you get the idea This is different. And yes, the title of the thread (omitting the word "against") was intentional.

Well played, sir. Don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you and think that Orton is leaps and bounds above geno smith who I can't believe is still playing, but if I had to give each a one line summary it would read similarly (even if the bad of one is way worse than the bad of the other). Does that make any sense? I do wonder, however if the reason geno is still playing and EJ is benched is his ability to throw downfield (albeit with a ridiculous amount of turnovers). Is it possible that this is what people are talking about when they say the qb is going through his growing pains (picks, bad reads, mistakes) but is flashing signs of potential (great throws, moving the ball with his arm). Anyways, I agree, gene sucks right now and I am very happy Orton is our qb and not him.

So duke basketball has a ridiculous recruiting class this year, and it's two major in conference rivals, Syracuse and UNC, both are being investigated for major academic/player special treatment violations? Not a bad time to be coach K. Yeah, this belongs in otw. I had no idea that that was how you spell agida, but I HAVE always wondered.

Tell me which team I am talking about (Bills or Jests) when I make these statements: 1. Good D, average to subpar offense 2. D-line is very good, but they can be beat in the secondary. 3. One of their guards ranks in the low-mid 70's out of 78 guards in pff's grading system, the other is even worse. 4. They are starting a guard this week with limited or no playing time with the starting unit this season. 5. Qb can make great throws and pick up yardage in chunks, but is also turnover prone. 6. They want to be a run-first team. 7. Bull headed coach. 8. Have not had a true franchise quarterback in around a decade, they are not sure they have one now. 9. They are from New York.... Oh wait, that one only applies to the bills. Ha! Seriously, though... It's like looking in a really depressing mirror. It's gonna be a really interesting game.

Sure do, very talented group of dudes, that being said, thank you BigCat for bringing my love of a capella music to the attention of a football board. More than reasonable chance I am gonna get beaten up, thrown in a locker and have a slushee dumped on me. Only made worse by the fact that I am Indian and probably sold them the slushee myself.

I like your post, and agree, but you should be banned from the board for using words that I have to look up to understand. In case you are wondering, acceptable language on this board includes "billieve; git 'er dun; ground up and in the freezer; F5; ralph/pegula is cheap; EJ sucks; EJ is the future; anything involving a ceiling or a floor; and of course, IN" For the rest of us.... capricious adjective given to sudden and unaccountable changes of mood or behavior: a capricious and often brutal administration | a capricious climate. DERIVATIVES capriciously adverb. capriciousness noun ORIGIN early 17th cent.: from French capricieux, from Italian (seecapriccioso) . flummox verb [ with obj. ] (usu. be flummoxed) informal perplex (someone) greatly; bewilder: he was completely flummoxed by the question. ORIGIN mid 19th cent.: probably of dialect origin; compare with dialectflummock‘to make untidy, confuse' Wait, now that i understand your post, I REALLY agree, but all you really had to say, which everyone would have understand was... ".... any given sunday"

Must be going around! Rothelisberger was breaking out the Blue 80's left and right last night!