Orton's Arm

Note to the OP: please do not start a new thread when an existing thread on the subject already exists. Thanks.

This kid is still in high school, and weighs in at 400 lbs. The Bills need a big, pounding "thunder"-type RB to complement Spiller's lightning. Maybe in a few years the Bills could . . . ? This running back is averaging 6.0 yards per carry; and is considered very agile for a person his size.

I apologize for my incorrect prediction.

I agree that Hogan played well. In fact, his play reminded me a little of this guy. As for the discussion about the kinds of QB prospects we should be looking for: I agree it's possible for a college prospect to succeed as a pro even if he doesn't fit my profile. But I don't want to throw that profile out the window; because it produces correct predictions much more often than not. I'm very concerned about the idea of looking on physical tools as a substitute for proven pocket passing at the college level. I'm not saying that a questionable college pocket passer can never develop into a good pocket passer as a pro. But the odds are very strongly against his doing so. Beyond that, I can't think of a whole lot to add to this discussion that I haven't already written. If I don't respond to your or others' follow-on posts when it seems like I should be responding, it's because I've run out of new things to say.

I would rather use a first round pick on a college QB who'd proven himself as a pocket passer; than use the pick on a "raw" prospect with great physical gifts. Another participant in this discussion strongly implied this preference is due to racism. What that discussion participant failed to mention was that even when that "raw" prospect was white--Ryan Leaf, Tim Tebow, etc.--I still rejected him. If I were to make a list of the best QBs in NFL history, it would include the following players: Johnny Unitas Aaron Rodgers Joe Montana Steve Young Peyton Manning Tom Brady Roger Staubach Honorable mentions: Kurt Warner, Warren Moon, Drew Brees, Dan Marino (I'm sure people will be able to think of a few extra names which should be on this list.) A few of those guys--such as Steve Young--had very good physical tools. But for the most part, the above list represents guys heavily gifted with accuracy, reading defenses, etc. Not necessarily guys who were that much different than other NFL starters from a physical standpoint. If you want a top 10 QB of all time, it's much more important to get an elite pocket passer than a guy with good physical gifts. I realize the Bills don't absolutely have to have a top 10 of all time QB. The Ravens just won a Super Bowl with Flacco; and he's not in that top 10 of all time category. But if being a good pocket passer is absolutely essential for being a top 10 of all time QB; then odds are it's also very important for being a top-50 or top-75 of all time QB. I at least want the Bills to have a top-75 of all time QB. That would give them a realistic chance of winning a Super Bowl; assuming they build a sufficiently good team around him. A Super Bowl victory is non-optional!

Good post! I agree with your meta-message: that some successful quarterbacks would not meet my definition of a good college prospect; and some unsuccessful QBs would. I also agree that Manuel played better today than I'd expected. My memory isn't perfect, so I could be wrong about this. But I think that about 2/3 of first round QBs are either outright busts or mediocre starters. For a predictive model to be useful, it just has to provide a significantly better chance of being right than the average NFL team has. Trent Edwards does not fit my current definition of what I'm looking for, because he was not a successful pocket passer in college. I realize it's very difficult to be a successful pocket passer when you don't have an offensive line. Edwards was considered a very difficult prospect to evaluate for that reason. Edwards was reasonably accurate when throwing the football. We're not talking Montana-level accuracy here; but certainly he was more accurate than Fitz. He also had better physical tools. Maybe he failed due to lack of sufficient bandwidth. Maybe he failed because his risk-adverse personality prevented him from taking advantage of the mental bandwidth he had. A guy who's proved himself as a college pocket passer is less likely to fail for either of those reasons. But even with a proven college pocket passer, failure is not impossible; because the NFL is more complex than college. Also, the increased speed of the NFL game means QBs are given less time with which to process information.

Back in the late '90s, I strongly expressed the position that Peyton Manning was a much better prospect than Ryan Leaf. Manning was described as the more polished pocket passer; Leaf as the guy with more "upside" because of his physical tools. My preference for Manning over Leaf was due to my closet racism, right? You have obviously not even considered the possibility that I might be telling the truth about how I evaluate quarterbacks. You are also clearly determined to ignore the fact that first and second round QBs who meet the bill of what I'm looking for are much more likely to succeed than those who do not. For you, this discussion isn't about football at all. It's about my motives. If you're ever in the mood to have a real conversation about football, let me know. But I don't have time to deal with the irrationality of your emotions. Consider this my last response to the category of post you've just written.

> You have a specific qb profile that you adhere to when evaluating prospects. You would have passed > on unconventional qbs such as Newton or Kaepernick and favored more cerebral qbs such as Schaub and > Alex Smith. There's some truth to the above. I believe the following: 1) There is wide variation in people's ability to quickly process large amounts of information 2) Most college QB prospects do not have the mental bandwidth necessary to become elite NFL QBs 3) If a college prospect does not demonstrate he's a polished pocket passer; it's extremely unlikely he has anything close to Aaron Rodgers-type bandwidth 4) Multiple attempts have been made to design offenses for quarterbacks with great physical gifts and limited mental bandwidth. These offenses can sometimes achieve limited successes: Losman's one good year for Buffalo, Kordell Stewart's one good year for Pittsburgh, etc. But when you think about QBs who sustained a high level of play for many years; you're almost invariably looking at accurate passers with high bandwidth. There are times when I've messed up in evaluating QBs. Unlike other Ivy League schools, Stanford typically applies the same or very similar admissions standards to athletes on scholarship as it does to everyone else. Based on that, plus the Bill Walsh recommendation, I'd thought Trent Edwards had the kind of mental bandwidth necessary to be a very good NFL QB. I was wrong. I've since come to realize that there is almost no substitute for a QB proving himself as a pocket passer in college. Edwards' Stanford degree was not a substitute for that; even though I'd thought it was at the time. I've concluded that if I'm going to err, I'd rather err by taking a guy whose success as a college pocket passer demonstrated throwing accuracy and mental bandwidth. That's much better than taking a guy who wasn't a good pocket passer in college, and hoping either a) to turn him into a good pocket passer as a pro (very unlikely) or b) designing an offense to accommodate his limitations and maximize his strengths (very unlikely to be successful for more than 1 - 2 years). One of my worst fears with Manuel is that he'll play well enough to string the Bills along for the next few years; but never well enough to achieve anything in the postseason. If he has 1 - years' worth of performances like he did against the Jets, the Bills might not take a first round QB until 2016. And might well pass up some very good QB prospects between now and then. Prospects who are a much better fit for the standard-issue NFL QB success story than Manuel.

> The fact is that the past has almost > nothing to do with the present as the > people behind those moves are no > longer part of the Bills F.O. Granted. I'm guessing that most of the faces in the Bills' front office are different than had been the case the last time around (Losman pick). To clarify my last post: I'm not trying to say that we should automatically assume everything this front office does is a boneheaded move. (Even though there have been plenty of boneheaded moves in the post-Polian era.) What I am trying to say is that we shouldn't automatically place blind faith in the Bills' front office; any more than we'd place blind faith in the front office of the St. Louis Rams, the Jacksonville Jaguars, or some other team which has been below .500 in recent years. When Jacksonville took Blaine Gabbert, or Denver took Tebow, or the Raiders took Jamarcus Russell, it was easy for a lot of people here to see very early on that those players would be busts. The Buffalo front office hasn't proven itself better than those other teams' front offices. Manuel is not a better prospect than Gabbert, Losman, or a number of other QBs like that. But people on these boards have made an emotional investment in Manuel that they didn't make in QBs like Gabbert, which is why Manuel is being discussed differently.

> Since I don't work as a GM or > college talent evaluator for the > NFL, I will assume they feel they > can develop him into a franchise QB. Right. Because the Bills' string of uninterrupted success stories at the quarterback position are enough to inspire blind confidence in almost anyone. I will never forget the sheer brilliance of the Todd Collins selection; or the clever move to trade a third round pick for Billy Joe Hobart. Trading a first for Rob Johnson was a good call. The Bills also proved smarter than the rest of the league when they were the only ones to offer a first round pick for Drew Bledsoe. Using a first round pick on Losman was a great idea, even though he fit the profile for a standard-issue first round bust. With a track record like that, how could anyone possibly have any doubts at all about the Manuel selection? I mean, granted, the guy wasn't an accomplished pocket passer at the college level; and just about every other first round QB like that has gone on to be a bust. But if someone with a sterling track record like the Bills' front office says Manuel will be the exception to that rule, how could anyone possibly question their judgement?

> Are those rookie seasons you put up after their full seasons? Yes. > Probably more accurate to compare EJ at the end of his. Agreed. My post was partly inspired by a link earlier in this thread; in which some sports writer compared Manuel's rookie season to Dalton's and Wilson's. Thus far this year Manuel's numbers don't even come close to supporting such a comparison. There's a chance that that will change over the final six games of this season. I personally feel that unless Manuel turns into a whole new player--someone very different than the EJ Manuel who played in college--he's very unlikely to ever become a Dalton or a Russell Wilson. There are some who disagree with me; and we'll know who's right soon enough!

Good find. Manuel ranked between 30th - 34th in the four categories. Compare that to the rookie seasons of the following players: Andy Dalton: 12th - 13th Russell Wilson: 6th - 12th Cam Newton: 13th - 16th Anyone who has compared Manuel's rookie season to that of those other three players is just being silly. Manuel's rookie season more closely parallels Brandon Weeden's. As a rookie, Weeden ranked 29th - 34th in the four categories in question.

> What you neglect to mention is that the Bills offense went to hell in a hurry without Price. Part of that was due to problems with the offensive line. Part of that was that Bill Belichick revealed the blueprint for defeating Drew Bledsoe. (Send pressure up the middle.) But part of it was that after Peerless left, the Bills had no deep threat. Granted, I'm not sure how much good a deep threat would have done them anyway, given their lack of blitz pickup and Bledsoe's lack of sack avoidance technique. But all else being equal, an offense with a deep threat has more options than one without. > That all being said.......the team just can't afford to give away talent. Agreed. I could see two possible arguments for trading him away: 1) If the price was right 2) The argument that the Bills probably won't have their QB of the future on the roster until next season at the earliest. The logic here is that the QB won't really hit his stride until year two or three of his career; by which point most of Stevie's good years will be behind him.

> The QB(s) are all less accurate than Fitzpatrick. After the 2002 season, TD was able to trade away Peerless Price for a first round pick. A lot of that was because Drew Bledsoe's excellent play--especially during the first eight games of 2002--caused teams to regard Price in the best possible light. His trade value was at its zenith. Compare that to Stevie Johnson. Is Johnson a better football player than Price? Absolutely. But between his injury and the fact that the Bills' QB play has been significantly worse this year than last year, Johnson's trade value may be at its nadir. Assuming the goal is to trade Johnson--which I'm not convinced it should be--it might be better to wait a year. If the Bills experience significantly improved QB play in 2014, and if Johnson is injury-free for the 2014 season, it might be possible to get a draft pick significantly higher than what we could get for him now.

Great post! Anyone who hasn't yet taken the time to read the above is in for a very informative and insightful read. Also, the article to which you linked did an excellent job of dispelling some of the myths which have arisen around Manuel. The authors clearly know their stuff. At this point, the best I can hope for is that the egg for the Manuel pick splashes on Buddy's face more than Whaley's. (Thus freeing Whaley to use a first round pick on a QB in 2014.) I don't know how realistic that is; but a man can always hope. The Manuel pick represents a combination of mistakes the Bills made in the 2004 draft and 2006 draft. 2004 draft: They used a first round pick on a QB with great physical tools who'd never proved himself as a pocket passer in college 2006 draft: They locked into two positions (SS and DT); and concluded that their first two picks of the draft had to be used on those positions. That's how they ended up with a deeply disappointing SS and an outright bust at DT. I'd like to at least see the Bills make new mistakes, instead of repeating the same old mistakes over and over. Changing the kinds of mistakes they make would at least show they're learning.

> There's a lot that's wrong with this paragraph. You forget to whom you're speaking! > Fitz's "few good games" were the equivalent of almost a full season. That's going pretty far. I remember that at one point, the Bills were 5-2 or something, and Fitz had pretty decent stats. I think he was averaging 7.1 yards per attempt. By the end of the season that average had declined to 6.7 yards per attempt. Both in terms of statistics and the eyeball test, his performance in the second half of the season was significantly worse than what he'd achieved early on. > The "shiny new contract" was essentially two 3-year deals that would pay him mid-level starter's money Agreed. But mid-level starter's money is considerably more than what a QB of Fitz's caliber should receive. After the Bills released him, no GM was interested in signing him as anything other than a backup, at backup QB money. > Put Fitz at QB for the Bills' first 10 games this year, and I'd bet a lot of $$ their record would be 6-4 or better. Agreed. I don't have a very high opinion of Fitz's QB ability; but even I have to admit that he'd be a significant step up from what we've had this year.

Your post sounds convincing. But look at the actual track record of those NFL front offices. After Fitz had a few good games, the Bills rewarded him with a shiny new contract; which paid him as though he was the long-term answer at QB. He hadn't fixed the accuracy issues which had plagued him his whole career. Instead, Gailey had designed an offense which allowed the Bills to largely mask Fitz's innate inaccuracy. That offense was great while it worked. But eventually--starting with the Bengals game--defensive coordinators figured out how to take away what Gailey wanted the offense to do; thereby exposing Fitz and his lack of accuracy. This is not me engaging in 20/20 hindsight. During Fitz's good streak, I pointed out that his lack of accuracy had not been fixed. I also pointed out that the Bills were engaged in an experiment, to see if Gailey could design an offense which could mask a QB's lack of great accuracy even after defensive coordinators had figured it out. Nix extended Fitz after the new offense had been revealed, but before defensive coordinators had had very much time to figure it out. The Bills are not alone in this kind of poor decision-making. It's fairly common for GMs to make decisions which fans readily identify as mistakes: Blaine Gabbert, Tim Tebow, Jamarcus Russell, etc. To act as though even the worst-run five or ten NFL teams have sophisticated, crystal ball-like evaluation mechanisms which make mere mortals pale in comparison is to completely ignore the results those front offices produce.

Thanks for the link. In the video portion of the article you provided, Cosell didn't mention Manuel at all; except indirectly by saying that Nassib was his favorite QB. He also said that none of the QBs in the 2013 draft were the same quality prospects as Tannehill. In the written portion of the article, he didn't mention Manuel at all either. The article's final sentence--the one you seem to be hanging your hat on--states that Mike Mayock had Manuel rated as one of his top-three QBs. Mike Mayock does not speak for Greg Cosell. The article I quoted states the following: 1) From the text portion: "Cosell labeled the USC passer [barkley] a fourth-round talent" 2) From 0:35 of the video: "I wouldn't put him [Manuel] past Barkley at this point." If Cosell considered Barkley a fourth round talent, and wasn't willing to give Manuel a higher rating than Barkley, then it's clear Cosell had Manuel rated a fourth round talent or lower. Beerball: > Either get back on topic or not. Sorry. I didn't see this until after I'd written my post. I will make no further statements about Manuel in this thread. To return to topic: I think that Fitz may have seen himself as a starting quality QB. When the Bills asked him to take a pay cut and a backup role, it probably came as a surprise. Most people looking objectively at him would feel he's a backup. But people aren't always objective when evaluating themselves. The fact that Fitz is no different than the average person in that respect doesn't make him a bad guy, or a less-than-valuable member of the community. It just means he's not perfect.

One of the most respected draft analysts out there--Greg Cosell--has also implied that Manuel should have been taken in the fourth round or later. Frankly, I have more faith in Cosell's judgement than in the Bills' front office.

I don't see why Manuel was drafted before the fourth round; unless it was out of desperation or because the Bills were over-valuing physical gifts. Certainly nothing he did in college as a pocket passer suggests he ought to have gone before the fourth round. The thought process which resulted in Manuel as a first round selection was the same thought process which earlier had resulted in Losman. At the same time, I've consistently pointed out that Fitz lacks the accuracy you need. Neither Fitz nor Manuel are the long-term answer at quarterback for the Bills.

I read your post, then listened to the Cosell interview. Cosell said two things which, taken together, are telling: 1) From the article: "Cosell labeled the USC passer [barkley] a fourth-round talent" 2) From 0:35 of the video: "I wouldn't put him [Manuel] past Barkley at this point." If Cosell regards Barkley as a fourth round talent, and isn't willing to rank Manuel ahead of Barkley, the implication is that he and I are on the same page in terms of regarding Manuel as a fourth round talent or lower. Cosell said some positive things about Manuel's physical talents. But he also criticized Manuel's downfield accuracy and mechanics; and said it would "take time" for him to contribute as a professional. Normally when I've heard that "take time" thing, it's meant that a QB hasn't proven himself as a pocket passer at the college level; and is extremely unlikely to ever prove himself as a pocket passer at the NFL level. > My gentle recommendation to you is to be more patient and ride this horse a little longer. I take no joy in false hope. At this point, there's no objective reason to believe Manuel will be any different than any other first round QB bust. That's not a guarantee he will be a bust. But my level of hope in him is based on where he should have been taken (fourth round or later), not where he was taken.

Good post. You've partially convinced me that Flutie's mediocre statistics from '99 were largely a function of the Moulds injury.

In 1998, Doug Flutie averaged 7.7 yards per pass attempt. To put that number into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt; and Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt. At least statistically, 1998 was a ridiculously good year for Flutie--significantly better than the 7.1 yards per attempt Losman averaged in 2006. In 1999, Flutie averaged 6.6 yards per attempt--the same as Losman's career average, and only 0.1 better than Edwards' career average. There were three potential explanations for why Flutie's 1999 numbers fell off the cliff. 1) Age was catching up to him. 2) Defenses had figured out that when you face Flutie, you defend the short stuff and make him beat you deep, 3) both. Flutie's play in 1999 was bad enough that he deserved to be benched--especially if there was a viable alternative already on the roster. Rightly or wrongly, the Bills believed they had that viable alternative in the form of Rob Johnson. The Bills' offensive line of the late '90s was decent at run-blocking, but almost completely non-functional in pass protection. John Fina was considered the second-best player on that OL after Ruben Brown. With one year left on Fina's existing contract, Butler signed him to a rich extension. A year after that signing, TD released Fina--who then proceeded to sign for the vet minimum with some other team. If even the second best player was a vet minimum guy, then what does that tell you about the third-, fourth-, and fifth-best starters on that line? If you combine an offensive line like that with a "sack waiting to happen" QB in the form of Rob Johnson, you've got a recipe for disaster. Which is exactly what the Bills experienced. Johnson became the most sacked QB in NFL history. His sack percentage was about twice as high as the #2 guy on that list. In 1999, the Bills should have had two starting QBs. Flutie made the OL look better than it was, so he should have been the starting QB in the first half; when the pass rush was at its best. Rob Johnson was much better than Flutie at exploiting opportunities deeper down the field--assuming sufficient pass protection of course--so he should have been the starting QB for the second half of games.

> What I am saying is that for most qbs, including first round selections, there is a developmental stage. I agree. Peyton Manning didn't look great his rookie year. Drew Brees took a while to develop. Your comment about a developmental stage is absolutely correct. > Where I strenuously disagree with you is that I'm going to give him a fair opportunity to succeed before I declare him a bust. In the minutes leading up to his selection, I was fully confident the Bills would use the pick on Barkley. The one thing they have to do now is not mess this up, I'd thought to myself. When the Manuel selection was announced, I felt the same sense of sports-related heartbreak that I'd felt after No Goal, Wide Right, and the Music City Miracle. I was despondent.* The reason for my reaction was because, after having read a number of pre-draft assessments, I'd concluded that Manuel fit the standard-issue profile for a first round QB bust. I can't believe the front office was dumb enough to make such a boneheaded mistake, I thought to myself. Some posters, whose intellect and football acumen I have a great deal of respect for, tried to cheer me up. They told me Manuel was a significantly better QB prospect than I was giving him credit for. Their encouragement helped a little. But even though those people tend to be right a lot more often than they're wrong, in this particular case I'm convinced they're wrong. > Aaron Rodgers is arguably the best qb in the game. There is no doubt that qbs such as Peyton, Brady and > Brees elevate their respective deficient teams. All these qbs are HOF players. If that is the standard you are holding out for . . . I never wrote that that was the standard I was holding out for. I was addressing your claim that the Bills will not make the playoffs in 2014 no matter how well Manuel plays. If the Bills' front office lobotomized the Packers' front office, and convinced them to trade Aaron Rodgers for E.J. Manuel straight up, the Bills would become a legitimate Super Bowl contender in 2014. (Especially if their 2014 draft was good.) Currently, the Bills have three wins and seven losses. But IIRC, most of those losses were by seven points or less. All this without a quarterback. If the Bills had a quarterback, a lot of those close losses might have been wins. * The fact that Barkley was chosen at the top of the fourth round indicates that San Jose Bills Fan was almost certainly correct about Barkley lacking the minimal level of arm strength to succeed as a starter.

> One of my major problems I have with your "quick" assessment of EJ is that you are to a large extent making a > judgment on highlight films that you have observed. That is a very small slice of his performances to make a judgment on. Granted. On the other hand, those highlight film plays presumably represent the best he has to offer. If there's nothing in that "best" which shows he can make more than two reads, or throw to anyone other than a ridiculously wide open receiver, then that's a very serious concern. Watching that highlight video merely reinforced concerns I'd already felt based on what I'd read from football experts and FSU fans. Add to that the fact that FSU's offense is doing significantly better this year than last year due largely to their upgrade at the QB position, and there's very serious cause for concern. > You don't think that this organization expended a lot of time and effort in comparing EJ to > the other top qb prospects in last year's draft? All the candidates were thoroughly vetted > and compared against one another. The staff to a large extent was investing in the success > of their careers with their selection. The above text sounds good. The problem is that you could write the exact same thing for any team which uses a first round pick on a QB. You could have written those exact same words for Denver after the Tebow pick, for crying out loud! Every team's fans hopes that their team's front office does a better, more thorough job of vetting QB prospects than an average NFL team would do. Unfortunately, there's no objective reason to believe the Bills' front office does an above-average job of evaluating QB prospects. Manuel fits the profile of a standard-issue first round bust. He's got great physical tools, but never established himself as a good pocket passer at the college level. Whenever I see a team use a first round selection on a QB like that, my assumption is that he'll be a bust. I cannot think of a single case where that assumption was later disproved. > What I know for sure is that it is too early in his injury riddled rookie year to make a confident judgment. I wouldn't have taken him in rounds 1 - 3. He just didn't prove enough at the college level. Thus far, he hasn't proven a single thing as a professional that he didn't prove in college. > Whatever assets that Barkley and Nassib have over EJ are negated by their physical limitations. A certain minimum level of physical tools is needed to succeed as a starting QB. It's quite possible Barkley's arm strength falls below that minimum threshold. But if a QB has a decent set of physical tools--such as those possessed by Trent Edwards for example--then that's good enough. Sure, more physical gifts are always better. But if a QB has decent physical tools, the course of his NFL career will be determined mostly by his accuracy, mental bandwidth, and other non-physical attributes. > Let me also add that the Bills will not be a playoff team nexr year no matter how much EJ improves. I disagree. Look at the Packers team that Aaron Rodgers carried to a Super Bowl win. After accounting for their injuries, do you really think they had that much more talent than we could have after the 2014 offseason and draft? If Manuel became the next Aaron Rodgers, the Bills would be highly likely to go to the playoffs. With a good draft in 2014, we might even be a legitimate Super Bowl contender. The problem with all this is that Manuel isn't the next Aaron Rodgers. Or anything remotely close.