Orton's Arm

I agree that, if you look at Dareus's overall body of work to this point in his career, you're not seeing what you'd expect to see from the third overall pick. He's had his struggles this year also; so it's not like all of this can be explained away by his brother's death. What's frustrating is that we could have used the Dareus pick on A.J. Green. I know you're not normally a fan of using first round picks on little guys, but Green is a special player. If he continues playing at the level we've seen from him thus far, he will be inducted into the Hall of Fame.

The two strip sacks you mentioned weren't Rob Johnson's fault. Both the Bills' starting OTs were playing hurt. (And weren't very good even when fully healthy.) Jevon Kearse (an elite DE) rushed untouched past one of the Bills' OTs to get a strip sack. The Bills responded by benching the injured OT and putting in his backup. Later, Kearse once again wasn't touched as he rushed toward Johnson. The result was another strip sack; and the Bills benching that other injured OT in favor of his backup. The healthy backup OTs played better than the injured starters. The Titans' pass rushers got a little slower as the game progressed. As the game wore on, the Bills developed some semblance of pass protection. Rob Johnson had a pretty decent second half; but his first half was of course a disaster. Putting a sack-prone QB like that behind an OL which simply couldn't pass protect is an obvious recipe for disaster!

> As a prospect Manuel was rawer than many other prospects. The other day I watched Manuel's college highlight video. 90 - 95% of what I saw consisted either of a) Manuel running the ball, or b) Manuel throwing to ridiculously wide-open targets. I saw little evidence of Manuel going to his second read, let alone his third or fourth read. I was dumbfounded that the Bills would use a first round pick on a QB whose highlight reel was as lacking as that! "Raw" is one way of describing someone like that. "Raw" implies that if a college QB prospect is given enough time to become cooked, he'll eventually learn to quickly and accurately process large amounts of information; and will develop the ability to throw perfect passes into tight coverage. The problem with that line of thinking is that if a guy hasn't demonstrated those things at the college level--which Manuel clearly hasn't--odds are strongly against his doing so as a pro. > Without a doubt Barkley and Nassib were better prepared to play sooner than EJ It's not just a question of playing sooner. It's a question of non-physical upside: mental bandwidth, accuracy when throwing into tight coverage, etc. Barkley did a much better job of demonstrating those things in college than did Manuel. Until proven otherwise, we have to assume that Barkley will continue having an advantage over Manuel in those areas for the duration of their respective careers. > but both lacked [Manuel's] potential upside because of his more imposing physical talents. J.P. Losman had much better physical tools than Tom Brady. A stronger arm. Faster legs. But Tom Brady had the better upside; because a QB's upside is located mostly between his ears. I realize that a lot of people use the word "upside" differently than me. But that usage is incorrect. Just because you can see good foot speed or a strong arm more readily than you can see fast information processing speed or the ability to accurately throw into tight coverage; doesn't mean that mental upside is any less real than physical upside. If anything, differences in college QBs' mental upsides are significantly more pronounced than differences in their physical upsides.

> By starting EJ last week -- which I think was a foolish mistake -- Marrone, and by extension Whaley and > Brandon, have made it clear that finding out what they have in Manuel is more important than winning right now. I pray you're right about that. But unfortunately, I've come up with another explanation for why they started him. It's quite possible Marrone believes that Manuel is enough better than Tuel or Lewis that even a slightly injured, rusty Manuel gives him his best chance to win. If they're that convinced in their belief in Manuel, then I don't think the next six games will be sufficient to change their way of thinking. Not enough for them to do the right thing and use a first round pick on a QB. I really hope I'm wrong about this. This team needs a franchise QB in the worst way. > if EJ were coming out this year and the Bills had a real shot at drafting Mariota, Manziel, etc., would you pick EJ? A very legitimate question; with a glaringly obvious answer. I realize most people in football organizations have type A personalities; and want everything done yesterday. It's unfortunate that the Bills' brass allowed their type A-created impatience to cause them to take their QB a year too early. The Bills need to bite the bullet, admit to themselves how badly they messed up, and fix the problem by taking a first round QB in 2014! Gordio: > [Drafting a first round QB in 2014] is what a smart front office would do. Agreed. But how are the actions of a hypothetical smart front office relevant to the Bills?

28th is a little harsh. The Bills are arguably the best 3-7 team in the league. After next week they'll be the best 3-8 team in the league.

Good post. I think we're on the same page. I agree that a big part of the reason why QBs with good physical tools are over-valued is because of the win-now mentality. But I also think there's a political element. If you use a first round pick on a QB with good physical tools, and if he turns out to be a bust, at least you can say, "He had the most upside. We took a chance on a raw prospect, we thought he'd develop, and he didn't pan out." But if you use that same first round pick on a guy without great physical tools, and he doesn't pan out, the failure is harder to explain away. A third factor is that some teams are better at evaluating players than others. Two of the easiest positions to evaluate are RB and DB; which is why, over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 50% of their first picks of the draft on RBs and DBs. If you're evaluating a college QB, it's much easier to assess his physical tools than it is to determine how good he is at quickly and accurately processing large amounts of on-field information; or the other things you look for in a pure pocket passer. A QB prospect with great physical tools and few proven achievements as a pocket passer is in many ways ideal for a team which isn't very good at evaluating QBs. Using a first round pick on a guy like that lets them convince their fans they're doing something about the QB position. Odds are that his physical tools will allow him to achieve a few early career successes; and those will serve to excite the fan base. "Think of how much more this guy will be able to accomplish once he's developed!" Then, when the QB turns out to be a bust, the GM can at least say, "The NFL is a changing league, and the era of the immobile pocket passer is over. We had to take a prospect like him if we were going to compete in today's NFL."

I can only speak for myself. But if Manuel is accurate, makes good reads, and handles himself well, but gets punished by a lot of WR drops, then I won't pile on. On the other hand, if he's inaccurate, but puts up good stats anyway due to YAC and WRs making circus catches, then I will. For me, this is about whether Manuel does a good job with the things under his personal control.

Your problem with the phrase "QB evaluation techniques" is what exactly? Obviously your reason for responding to that post is the same reason you have for responding to any of my other posts: to quibble about, express disagreement about, or cast doubt on something. But what on earth possessed you to single out that particular phrase? Do you honestly believe that every team uses the same set of criteria in evaluating QBs? Do you think that all the other teams on the league had the same lofty opinion of Tebow that Denver had? Or the same high opinion of Losman that TD had? One of the reasons teams' assessments of QBs differ from each others' is because they are emphasizing different things. When one team sees a college QB with great physical skills but limited accomplishments as a pocket passer, they think to themselves, this guy can be developed.. Another team sees that same guy and thinks to itself, future bust. The two teams have different QB evaluation techniques. Different ways of interpreting the available data. I've heard it claimed that you're one of the more knowledgeable people here. If that's true, why not use that knowledge to make meaningful contributions to discussions? Why are you attempting to derail this discussion with a meaningless squabble over what ought to be a self-explanatory phrase?

There are several reasons why teams normally don't take back-to-back first round QBs. 1) normally, the people deciding whether to take a first round QB in year 2 of this equation are the same ones who selected a first round QB in year 1. They obviously liked the QB they chose in year 1; or else they wouldn't have used a first round pick on him. Often that liking is based on an erroneous evaluation of a QB, or wishful thinking. But it takes a while to undo erroneous thought processes or wishful thinking. For example: from the get go, I was confident that JaMarcus Russell, J.P. Losman, and Tim Tebow would all be busts. When Denver took Tebow, I thought to myself, there's a waste of a first round pick! But it took Denver a bit to realize that, because they'd invested too much mental energy into an erroneous thought process. 2) Rookie quarterbacks usually get off to rocky starts. If a GM sees flaws with the guy he just drafted, it's less painful to tell himself that the guy just needs to develop, than it is to admit he drafted a first round bust. Sometimes the guy really did just need time to develop; as Drew Brees will doubtless attest. But it's also very easy to use the development thing as an easy excuse to ignore red flags and warning signs. 3) if an organization uses first round picks on QBs two years in a row, it gets egg on its face. A lot if times people are more politically attuned to short-term egg splatters than they are to implementing a disciplined long-term plan for the franchise. That short-sightedness will bite them in the long run; but people don't always think about the long run. 4) many times when a bust QB was chosen, it's because flawed QB evaluation techniques were used. It's generally unrealistic to expect a team to significantly upgrade its QB evaluation techniques immediately after drafting a QB in the first round. After having used a first round pick on a QB, they are typically more focused on crossing their fingers and praying that their pick works out; than they are on taking a cold hard look at the mistakes they may have made with their QB evaluation technique.

> From a pure scouts perspective, it's more important to note the things you DON'T see. Agreed. Which is why I became concerned after watching Manuel's college highlight video. Almost none of the highlights involved him throwing to anything other than a wide-open receiver. None of the highlights involved him going to his third or fourth read. To be honest, I didn't see that many cases of him going to his second read. > Buddy Nix NEVER saw a franchise QB in Fitz and never pretended that he did. Fair enough. But the extension he gave Fitz to sign implied that he saw Fitz as a medium-term solution. I agree with you that Buddy was humble. But that humility may not always have protected him from wishful thinking; as the Fitz contract extension demonstrates. One of the reasons for having humility is to spur oneself to greater intellectual rigor. Buddy was humble, but may not always have been spurred. > I'm sorry, it IS ridiculous to keep harping on the "long ball" issue. Why? While Manuel has plenty of arm strength for the long ball, he hasn't shown he can throw the long ball with consistent accuracy. I don't think that issue alone will kill his career--he'll be a bust due to a combination of reasons--but the long ball issue can't be ignored either. > If you and others insist that 6 games is enough to convince yourselves he doesn't have what it takes, so be it. I do not feel his college accomplishments warranted his selection in the third round; let alone the first round. Now that the Bills have used (squandered?) a first round pick on him, they should use the next six games to evaluate him. Then they should take a QB in the first round of the 2014 draft, assuming there's one worth taking. They should sit that QB his entire rookie year, with Manuel the starter for 2014. There's a chance this will result in a Drew Brees/Philip Rivers situation; with two deserving QBs and only one starting position. But that chance is miniscule. Odds are that at least one of the QBs (Manuel) will fail; and they might both fail.

Not that it's a big deal, but Montana was taken in the third round. The point I was making earlier is that teams tend to under-value and under-draft good college pocket passers with limited physical tools (Brees, Brady, Montana, etc.) while overvaluing QBs with great physical gifts who'd never become polished pocket passers (Losman, Akili Smith, EJ Manuel). The other point I was making is that if QBs with great physical tools are typically overvalued and over-drafted, then the fact that Manuel was still available at 16th overall should be a serious concern. Guys who got rejected because of their limited physical tools can still have great careers, as Brees, Brady, Montana, and others have proved. But normally when a QB with great physical tools gets rejected, it's a very strong indication he's likely to fail.

> Seeing what I want to see? That is laughable considering my background TD saw what he wanted to see in Losman; despite TD's very extensive football background. Buddy Nix saw what he wanted to see in Fitzpatrick; despite having been a football professional for decades. None of us is immune from seeing what we want to see, no matter how much time we've spent watching film or being around the game. The only protection against that flaw is humility: the knowledge that one isn't perfect, and must therefore compensate through extra intellectual rigor and sheer determination not to be misled by one's emotions. > Long ball accuracy. That get's tossed around quite a bit here. And it's ridiculous because no > QB in the history of the game can make a living throwing the long ball, whatever that is. It isn't ridiculous at all. The ability to throw an accurate long ball should be a tool in a QB's tool box. No one is asking the QB to make a living with that particular tool. But there will be times when the long ball is exactly the right tool. When those times occur, Manuel is at a disadvantage, because his long ball accuracy is highly inconsistent. > As I've said before, the benchmark throw [from] Manuel this year is the one he threw to Chandler in the > second quarter of the Pats game that led to setting up his TD to Woods. . . . Tuel, Lewis, and any QB > we've had on the roster this year simply can't make that throw. Sanchez also made throws that Tuel and Lewis can't make. It's nice to have a QB who can make throws other QBs can't. But the ability to do that isn't the heart of what makes a good QB. > How am I defining talent? Physical, obviously. Mental acuity. And leadership intangibles. All of which Manuel demonstrates a significant advantage over Tuel. Your claim that Manuel has displayed more mental acuity than Tuel is part of why I think you're seeing what you want to see. In college, Manuel consistently threw to his first or second read. (His coaches never asked him to do more.) In the NFL, he's been asked to run what appears to be a very simplified offense that appears to be much more "protect the rookie" and much less wide-open than the offense Tuel was asked to run against the Chiefs. I'm not seeing anything which, when looked at objectively, would lead one to believe Manuel has demonstrated a deeper grasp of the game than Tuel; at either the college or NFL level.

Your post reinforced suspicions I'd formed when gathering information about him. Almost nothing in his college highlight reel suggested greatness. Great physical tools, sure, but not great accuracy, nor great ability to read defenses, nor a great ability to throw into tight coverage. Going into the 2013 draft, the Bills were very strongly motivated to find their quarterback of the future. When they looked at Manuel, they saw what they wanted to see, not what was actually there. Your friends and family in Florida could watch him with more dispassion. No one was going to fire them from six figure jobs for failing to find a QB of the future.

> I'm using a vastly different tool because they are vastly different QBs at vastly different levels of talent. How are you defining talent? If you're referring to physical tools, then I agree Manuel has a significant edge over Tuel. If you're referring to the other aspects of the game, I'll grant that Manuel generally looked better than Tuel in practice. But Manuel's overall advantage over Tuel is far less pronounced than the difference in physical tools would suggest. > The only edge Tuel has is his lower body mechanics but that is readily correctable. That's going awfully far. Manuel has significant issues with long ball accuracy. Maybe you believe Tuel has those same issues; in which case the two would be about even. Also, nothing I've seen about Manuel--either in college or the NFL--suggests he's very good at throwing into tight coverage. If you watch , you'll see that almost every highlight throw was to a wide-open guy. In the NFL, if his intermediate to deep targets haven't been wide open, his instinct has usually been to check down. This seems like another area in which Tuel may have an advantage over Manuel. It's also possible Tuel has a better grasp of the mental side of the game; but I am not certain of this. > He has shown every reason why the Bills chose him to groom for the position. I think you're seeing what you want to see, not looking critically at what is (and isn't) there. I don't expect you to agree with me right this instant. But two to three years from now, you'll probably have come to have realized this for yourself.

> You need to review his earlier games to see him display every trait you accuse him of lacking above. The extent of his earlier successes has been greatly exaggerated. Even in his "good" games, he missed a number of reads. Thus far he's done nothing which would indicate he can handle a complex offense or quickly make multiple reads after the snap. I get that he's a rookie; and most rookies struggle with that kind of stuff. But let's not pretend he's proved more than he has. As for his accuracy issues, I'll grant that there were a few "big boy" throws in some of his earlier games. If you want to find hope in him based on those 1 - 2 plays per game, be my guest. I won't stop you. But if you look at all the other throws over the course of those games, there wasn't much there to suggest he'd rise above the Losman/Edwards level. In one of the games in question, he was relatively ineffective for three quarters; then went on to make some big plays on a TD drive in the fourth. "He played well when it mattered," people claimed at the time, as they remembered that one TD drive while forgetting everything which had happened before. That got chalked up as a "good" game for Manuel. > EJ had a piss poor game on Sunday. That is the extent of it. He played every bit as poorly as Tuel did against the Browns. Tuel was a rookie, got no practice snaps during the week leading up to the game, and experienced the near-complete collapse of his pass protection. (Not to mention WR drops, no running game, etc.) Based on Tuel's poor performance in 1.5 quarters of play, you were ready to release him from the roster. Manuel was also a rookie, got almost all the practice snaps leading up to the Steelers game, and received decent pass protection. And played as poorly as Tuel had against Cleveland. Your response to this was to inform us he's a rookie, and every rookie has a clunker now and then. You are clearly using a vastly different measuring stick for Manuel than you are for Tuel. Why is that?

Thanks for the link. I watched the video, and you have proven your point that he has a big arm. 90 - 95% of what I saw fell into two categories: 1) Manuel running the ball 2) Manuel throwing to wide-open targets/his first read I didn't see much evidence that he could hit his WRs in stride. Usually he was throwing to stationary targets. Granted, his strong arm/ability to throw the ball on a rope meant that they didn't have to remain stationary for very long. There were also times when he threw to a guy running downfield, or (less often) to a guy with some lateral movement. There were a few cases in which his throws seemed well-timed. But more often the WR had to slow down or adjust his route. The overall body of work I saw in that highlight video did not convince me Manuel deserved to be taken in the first three rounds.

Good post! Unfortunately, there's a difference between what the Bills should do, and what they will do. If there's a good QB available when the Bills pick, or even an opportunity to trade up for a good QB, the absolute, hands-down correct decision is to take that good QB. There's not a shred of doubt about that. This franchise has a long and sad history of outright ineptitude. During the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs, another 25% on DBs; and only 5% on QBs (Rob Johnson and EJ Manuel). With Spiller having a disappointing season and Fred Jackson getting up there in age, I think it's much more likely for us to take yet another RB in the first round--or perhaps a DB--than it is to take a QB. "It would be stupid to take a DB or RB when we need a QB," you might say, and you'd be right. But the Bills have a long track record of making exactly this kind of stupid decision. Moreover, it's highly likely that the same mistaken thought process which led the Bills to take Manuel in the first place will also cause them to eschew first round QB prospects in 2014, on the theory that Manuel deserves a chance to "develop." Development time for a QB is a very precious commodity. Yes, it's absolutely necessary to invest development time into the right QB prospect--or at least into a guy who's likely to be the right QB prospect. Personally, I don't think Manuel proved enough in college--in terms of making multiple reads, throwing into tight coverage, etc.--to have earned very much of that precious commodity. Obviously the Bills felt differently, which is why they invested a first round pick into the guy. I would love for them to realize their mistake after one year; especially if we get a top-10 pick in the 2014 draft. But it's more likely that it will take them 2 - 3 years to recognize they made an error and begin taking steps to correct it.

> At this point I'm not as concerned about his ability to make the right reads as many others are. They didn't ask him to make more than 1 - 2 reads when he was in college. As far as I'm concerned, his ability to make the right reads is a serious concern until he proves that it isn't. > What has me fretting is his lack of accuracy and touch on the simple throws. Yes, this is an extremely serious concern. Even in high school, Joe Montana displayed a consistent level of exceptional accuracy. If a QB isn't displaying basic accuracy by the time he gets to the NFL level, odds are heavily against him ever becoming accurate. At this point, Manuel displays a tendency to check down all the time (Trent Edwards), a lack of basic accuracy (Fitzpatrick), inability to read defenses (Losman) and a lack of pocket awareness (a hint of Rob Johnson). I realize he's a rookie, and rookie QBs often improve. But in this particular case, I think we're seeing more than rookie inexperience. Some of the issues we're seeing probably won't get fixed, and will end up preventing Manuel from rising above the Losman/Edwards level. Assuming he even reaches the Losman/Edwards level.

Good post! Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any QB who had EJ's combination of issues, who went on to become any good. Part of the problem is the mental lapses, which most rookie QBs will face. Part of it is the accuracy issues. Part is that thus far, he's shown very few flashes of being anything other than a very mediocre QB. Peyton Manning made a lot of mistakes as a rookie, but he also showed flashes of what he would later become. Maybe EJ is also showing us flashes of what he will become; but if so his destiny isn't too inspiring. With EJ, the problem isn't just the flaws which occur some of the time. It's the nearly complete absence of franchise QB-like traits the rest of the time. I think it's extremely unlikely he will overcome enough of his present flaws/absence of virtues to become a real answer at QB.

> It's laughable to believe that an NFL team would draft a player for the purpose of conducting an experiment to see if others were wrong. Wikipedia provides the following definition of an "experiment." "An experiment is an orderly procedure carried out with the goal of verifying, refuting, or establishing the validity of a hypothesis." In this case, the hypothesis being tested is that E.J. Manuel can become a top-12 QB. I'll fully grant that the reason for this experiment isn't because of detached scientific curiosity. The situation is more analogous to a drowning man grabbing onto something to see if doing so will keep him afloat. The drowning man has a very strong vested interest in the experiment being successful; just as the Bills have a strong vested interest in the Manuel experiment working. The reason the word "experiment" is important is because right now, no one--not the Bills, not anyone here on these boards, not anyone--knows that Manuel will ever become a better QB than Losman or Edwards. (At the moment, he is not better than either of those two.) Anyone who acts like he knows Manuel will ultimately succeed is deluding himself. Yes, by my definition, you could (and probably should) argue that all draft picks are experiments. But the Manuel selection was, at best, an extremely risky experiment. At worst, it was an ill-advised move done by a team desperate to grasp at anything; whose eagerness to find a QB blinded it to some fairly obvious warning signs. > They moved down, smartly for another pick in the value round. Believe me, I'm much happier with Manuel at 16th overall, + Kiko, than I would be with Manuel at 8th overall and no Kiko. The point I was making in my earlier post was that if Manuel was an Andrew Luck-type prospect, or anywhere close, the Bills would have correctly concluded that if they'd traded down to 16th, they would lose him. The Bills' decision to trade down was an acknowledgement that other teams' GMs had serious concerns about him. Manuel has great physical tools, and it's impossible to imagine GMs worrying about him failing due to lack of arm strength or foot speed. Normally QBs with great physical attributes tend to be over-drafted, because physical traits are so easy to measure. Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single QB with great physical traits who was drafted in the second round or later, who went on to perform at a first round level. Franchise QBs who fell to later rounds tended to have physical limitations. Joe Montana didn't have the world's strongest arm. Tom Brady lost a foot race to Drew Bledsoe. The combination of a QB with great physical traits + all the other stuff you'd want a QB to have is very salivating to GMs. So much so that they usually give the benefit of the doubt to a guy with good physical traits. And yet the Bills were confident that Manuel would still be available at 16th overall. Scouting reports described Manuel as "raw" or as a "project QB" who wasn't NFL-ready. Thus far we've seen the accuracy of those reports. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any first round QB described as "raw" who went on to become anything other than a bust. I personally wouldn't have taken Manuel before the third or fourth round at most. But now that the Bills have invested a first round pick in him, it's their responsibility to see what they have or don't have in him. He should start all the remaining games this season if healthy. Even if the Bills take a first round QB in next year's draft--as I strongly hope they do--I'd still like for Manuel to be the full-time starter next year. That would give the rookie QB a year to sit and learn on the bench. It would also give the Bills a two year window with which to evaluate Manuel.

> Luck, lots of passing yards but 3 INTs and his team put up 8 points I'd like to address the issue of Luck. Let's say you have a QB who throws well and is productive most of the time, but 5% of the time messes up to create an INT. With a performance like that, you can build on the 80 - 90% of the time when he's playing like a good-to-great quarterback should play, while working on the 5% - 10% that's resulting in those INTs. Compare that to a guy who, for the most part, does not do the things good or great QBs do. The problem with a QB like that isn't with 5% or 10% of his throws. It's with 80 - 90% of them. Did Luck's three INTs really hurt his team? Absolutely. No question. But performances like that will become less common for him as he matures as a player. Luck already looks like a good-to-great QB on 80 - 90% of his plays, and I expect that percentage will only increase as he matures as a player. Manuel's percentage is much smaller--probably somewhere in the teens or twenties. Manuel is much farther from being a good or great QB than Luck.

> I believe that you have a faulty premise. This is not an "experiment". EJ Manuel is the starting QB of > the Buffalo Bills and will be for the foreseeable future. The OP's premise is not faulty. EJ Manuel has done precisely nothing at the NFL level which would suggest he's the long-term answer at quarterback. The Bills' hypothesis is that, based on what Manuel did in college, he can eventually develop into someone who deserves to be the long-term starter. They are now in the process of testing that hypothesis. They are conducting an experiment. With the 8th overall pick, the Bills chose to trade down to 16th overall, knowing full well that the Jets had the 9th and 13th overall picks and a gaping hole at QB. The Bills were obviously confident the Jets wouldn't take him. They were also confident no other QB-needy team would trade up to some slot before 16th overall to take him. If NFL GMs were confident that Manuel would grow into a top-10 QB, he would have been long gone by 16th overall. That alone doesn't prove anything. Aaron Rodgers was taken 24th overall. Drew Brees was taken 32nd overall. QBs can have careers which greatly exceed the expectations associated with their draft positions. In college, Brees and Rodgers were better known as pocket passers and for their ability to quickly assimilate information than they were for their physical gifts. That's not something which can be said of Manuel. The Bills are conducting an experiment to see if Manuel's critics were wrong in their assessment of him. If the null hypothesis is that Manuel will be a failure, there has been no evidence at the NFL level which would disprove--or even cause us to question--the null. The Bills need to keep that fact firmly in mind when deciding whether to use a first round pick on a QB in the 2014 draft.

After next week, they'll be 3.5 games out of the final wildcard spot with 5 to play.

Good post. This is a non-playoff season, so the Bills need to think about preparing themselves for the 2014 draft. That preparation involves two things: 1) getting as good a pick as possible, and 2) deciding whether to use that pick on a QB. Unfortunately, there's a conflict between 1) and establishing a culture of winning. I don't expect anyone on the coaching staff to do anything less than his absolute best to prepare the team. But I do expect the coaching staff to start Manuel if healthy, even if some other QB on the roster might give the Bills a better chance to win. Starting Manuel is absolutely essential. The remaining portion of the season is an excellent opportunity to gather more information about him before deciding whether to draft his replacement. Also, if Manuel is indeed the second- or third-best Manuel for the job, the extra losses his poor play will generate will improve the Bills' draft position. If the Bills are in doubt about whether to take a QB, they should err on the side of taking one. There has been precisely one franchise QB in team history. One. During those times when the team lacked a franchise QB, the Bills have achieved precisely one post-merger playoff win. (Back in '81, they eked out a wildcard win before being eliminated in the divisional playoffs.) This franchise doesn't exactly have a history of bursting at the seams with an overabundance of franchise QBs. Nor does it have a track record of achieving much in the absence of a franchise quarterback. If by some miracle both Manuel and the QB they'd be drafting turn into top-10 QBs, they could always trade one of the QBs away. Cutler is not a top-10 QB, and yet the Broncos were able to trade him away for two first round picks, Kyle Orton, and some other stuff. Having too many good QBs on the roster is a much nicer problem than having too many good running backs; as the Bills learned when they traded away Lynch for a 4th + 6th rounder. I have a mental list of the things Manuel's detractors have written about him. Thus far, he has done nothing to cross a single item off that list. Not one item! A franchise QB could change the equation for the Bills for the next 10+ years. If there's a potential franchise QB available when the Bills pick, I don't see how they can pass that prospect up for a guy in Manuel who's far more likely to fail than succeed.

Good post as always, Bill. Even after a loss, this is my favorite thread each week. I agree that Gilmore played poorly today. Hopefully that's just from lingering effects of the injury, and not a cause for significant concern. But as disappointing as Gilmore was, another first round pick was far worse! Manuel's performance was abysmal. It's nearly impossible for a team to win with that level of QB play. The Bills will need to improve their level of QB play if they are to adequately evaluate their WRs and TEs. The fact that the Steelers ran for more yards than usual isn't entirely the defense's fault. If the offense cannot sustain drives, the Steelers will have more possessions than usual; leading to more rushing yards.