Orton's Arm

I was never a proponent of the hire either. Brad Smith was a jack of all trades, master of none. Let's say you line a guy like that up at WR. The problem there is that he's taking the place of another, more capable WR. Same if you use him as a return man. The one position where his versatility is actually meaningful is at quarterback; because he's a threat to run or pass. But there are other players on the roster whose overall combination of running + passing ability makes them much more threatening at QB than Brad Smith. That said, it's not Brad Smith's personal fault that his salary was several times higher than his worth as a player. If a given job normally paid $50,000 a year, and someone offered you $200,000 annually for that job, who here would demand to receive no more than the $50,000?

> And I should be able to fly a JetPack to work by now. This comment is not relevant to a discussion about whether monopolies should be publicly subsidized, or whether they should be allowed to engage in anti-competitive business practices. > But the municipalities gave/give the money to the teams and made agreements that are binding. Existing agreements should probably be grandfathered in. The creation of new agreements should be illegal. With or without public subsidies, there will still be 32 NFL teams; and 32 communities receiving whatever benefits NFL teams create. The only purpose public subsidies serve is to funnel money from taxpayers to millionaire players and billionaire owners. > NFL has an Anti-Trust exemption, so they can participate in as much anti competitive activities as they like. It's true that the NFL has an antitrust exemption. But there are still restrictions on its behavior even with that exemption in place. I am not suggesting eliminating that exemption. I merely want to see the exemption modified to eliminate its ability to impose television blackouts.

On the other hand, neither the Bill of Rights nor the Constitution state that millionaire players and billionaire owners have the right to taxpayer subsidies. NFL teams squeeze everything they can from us. The result is that they are swimming in a sea of money. This transfer of wealth from taxpayers to NFL players and owners is unnecessary. The only way to stop it is to make it illegal for any local community to provide public financing or public funding to an NFL team or NFL stadium. Blackout rules are another method by which NFL teams squeeze their fans. The sole reason for the blackouts it to allow a monopoly (the NFL) to reduce competition still further; thereby driving up the price of tickets and concessions. This practice should be illegal for the same reason that all monopolistic and anti-competitive business practices should be illegal.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. If anyone has any better suggestions, my ears are open.

Unfortunately, he's still at just four INTs on the season. Hopefully that changes against the Steelers.

> There is no way [broadcast companies] let the FCC reverse the Black Out rules for NFL games. If a Bills game gets blacked out in Western New York, or a Dolphins game gets blacked out in Miami, how does that help broadcast companies? Blackouts will typically mean fewer people watching NFL games on t.v., and that hurts broadcast companies. The purpose of blackouts is to allow NFL teams to charge highly inflated prices for tickets and concessions, without having to worry about competition from television. Blackouts do not help broadcast companies.

How am I blurring arm strength and touch? > Perhaps you can be the first to sell that long building with a 13 foot roof to the NFL, scouting consortiums, etc. Good luck. There are a number of things NFL teams could be doing better/differently than they are. Existing methods of measuring arm strength are probably reasonably good. I don't know how many (if any) NFL teams would be willing to experiment with a better way of measuring arm strength when a reasonably good, tried and true method is already in place. You're probably already familiar with what I'm about to write. But for those who are not: if there's a 13 foot roof over a QB's head, the only way he can make his throws longer is by throwing the ball harder, on a rope. I don't think a guy like Fitz would do very well with that 13 foot roof over his head; because he wouldn't be able to use rainbow throws to compensate for his inability to throw on a rope.

I agree that Tuel was disappointing in the preseason game against the Redskins. I realize Tuel is more likely to fail than to succeed. But I want to see him given a fair shake and accurately evaluated anyway. As for the arm strength thing: you can generally use a 40 yard dash to quantify how fast a guy is. Or agility drills to put a number on how agile a guy is. But while the 20 yard out seems like it would give scouts a general idea of a QB's arm strength, I don't think it would allow them to quantify that arm strength the way that a 40 yard dash quantifies foot speed. Bill from NYC also brought up a good point about how a throw in a straight line is often better than a rainbow. Maybe they could do two arm strength tests. Test 1 would consist of throwing the ball as far as possible. Test 2 would consist of throwing the ball as far as possible, in a long building with a 13 foot roof.

Any backup QB is going to have flaws. If he didn't, he wouldn't be a backup. Choosing a backup QB is a matter of choosing a guy whose flaws are least bad; or else finding a guy with the best offsetting strengths. During the preseason, my impression of Tuel was that he was more accurate than Fitz and had better physical tuels. Obviously Tuel has looked worse in the regular season than the preseason. But if my preseason impression of Tuel is correct--if he is indeed more accurate, faster, and stronger-armed than Fitz--then Tuel has the potential to be a very solid backup. Of course, he'd also need to do a respectable job of handling the mental side of the game. That pick-6 is a perfect example of a non-respectable job of handling the mental aspects of the game! It's something he'll have to correct if he's going to make it in this league even as a backup. As an aside, I wish they gave QBs an arm strength test. To achieve this, they'd tell the QB to throw the ball as far as he could. They'd give him five throws; and whichever throw was his best one would become his arm strength measurement. That way, we could talk about QB X as a 55 yard guy; or QB Y as a 65 yard guy. Better to have a hard and fast measurement than to go by subjective impressions.

Well said. The purpose of blackouts is to reduce competition between ticket sales and television viewing. The reason for reducing competition is to allow NFL teams to increase their ticket prices; without fans fighting back by watching games on television instead of at the stadium. Higher ticket prices mean more money for millionaire players and billionaire owners, and less money for fans. Given that the NFL is a football monopoly, it's not clear why they should be allowed to artificially decrease competition in this way.

Good post. If the defense is selling out against the run and daring you to beat them with the pass, the correct decision is to pass. Unfortunately, the Bills had a rookie QB in his first NFL start. Tuel made a rookie mistake on that play; and the Bills got burned. Even though the pick-6 was a terrible read, I felt Tuel's overall body of work was much stronger in the Chiefs game than it had been in the Browns game. If Tuel continues to improve, I'd like to see him on the roster for a long time.

I've heard this comparison several times. The difference between the late '80s teams and this team is that they had Jim Kelly; we have Manuel. Jim Kelly was a highly rated QB prospect--I don't think there was significant disagreement about whether he deserved to be a first round prospect. He became the only franchise QB in Bills' history. Compare that to Manuel. Some had him as a first round prospect. Others felt he was the second-, third-, or fourth-best QB in a QB-poor draft. Thus far he hasn't corrected the (very serious) weaknesses he demonstrated at the college level; and is a bottom-10 starting QB. There's a chance Manuel will improve, and will live up to the hopes the Bills had for him when they drafted him. There's also a chance his critics will be proved right. Until the gigantic question mark at the QB position is replaced with some kind of certainty, comparisons to the late '80s Bills are premature. As always, thanks to Bill from NYC for a great OP and great thread.

> EJ Manuel hasn't come CLOSE to looking as ill-prepared to do his job. Granted. But then again, he hasn't had to deal with the complete collapse of pass protection the Bills experienced when Tuel was under center. There are plenty of QBs who will look flustered if they're not getting protection. That effect may be more pronounced with rookie QBs than with veterans. > and gave him every meaningful backup rep since Kolb went down. I have not seen anything to indicate that Tuel had been given any practice reps in the week leading up to the Browns game. Maybe that was because it was a short week. Then again, there's also a strong possibility they don't give their backup QB practice reps during the regular season. A rookie QB needs all the practice reps he can get!

> He MISSED open receivers from the moment he got in I'm not disputing the fact he had a bad game. There were times when his throws hit the ground before reaching the intended receiver; and times when he made the wrong read. But there were plenty of other times when there was simply no pass protection; or times when there was maybe some pass protection but no one open. > You can blame his coaches and supporting cast all you want but there were plays to be made and he wasn't up to the task. If that's the standard you want to use when evaluating rookie quarterbacks, fine. But what happens the next time E.J. Manuel doesn't make plays that were there to be made? Do we write him off, the way you've written off Tuel? When Manuel makes a mental error, a lot of people react with, "He's a rookie; and rookies make mental errors." When Tuel makes mental errors--with far more excuse than Manuel--the reaction is, "I don't care if Tuel is a rookie. Professional football players are expected to be prepared, and Tuel's mental errors show a lack of preparation."

> Sorry. He is an NFL QB. Bad weather is not an excuse . . . Agreed. A real NFL QB never has a bad game; or even half a bad game. A real NFL quarterback isn't affected by whether there is or isn't pass protection, whether his receivers get open or not, whether they drop passes, whether he's a rookie, or whether he was given any snaps in practice leading up to the game. A real NFL quarterback finds a way to overcome. The problem with that definition of a "real" quarterback is that no one meets it. . Nor does Joe Montana. In the AFC Championship Game between the Bills and the Chiefs, the Bills' defense dominated Joe Montana's supporting cast almost as completely as the Browns had dominated the Bills' supporting cast. The Chiefs' passing game was mostly shut down as a result, and Montana didn't look nearly as good as he had a week earlier. If being a rookie made Peyton Manning look bad, and if having his supporting cast totally dominated made Joe Montana look ordinary, then how is Jeff Tuel supposed to cope with both problems at once? Add to that the fact that Tuel had been given few if any practice reps since the start of the regular season, and what you have is a guy who was set up to fail. > He looked scared and unprepared. I noticed that he had a nervous expression on his face when he was warming up on the sidelines. That nervousness became apparent in the game on some of the grounder throws he made. He will have to become confident if he's going to become a long-term backup QB. Positive visualization is part of the solution. Another part is better preparation: specifically the opportunity to get the majority of the practice reps in the week leading up to the game.

> My question is more along the lines of how badly is he hurt, and is it bad enough to force them to get Flynn ready sooner rather than later? Maybe it's time for Tuel. > You dont give up on a guy over a bad game. Unless his name is Jeff Tuel. Then you give up on him over half of a bad game. For the record, I'm not saying Tuel is the answer even at backup. But this is a rebuilding year for the Bills; so they may as well use the opportunity to evaluate as many people on their roster as possible. Conditions for Tuel in the Browns game were about as bad as possible. No reps in practice leading up to the game. No pass protection. WRs not getting open. WRs dropping passes. A hostile stadium. Even the weather was bad, for crying out loud! It's quite possible that once Tuel has been properly evaluated, the Bills will decide to move in a different direction. But he has not yet been put in a position where success was a realistic possibility.

> They're currently ranked 25th in points allowed and that's what really matters. This stat is misleading. The Bills have a no-huddle offense. To make matters worse, our offense has a lot of three-and-outs. Together, these two facts mean that our offense is much worse than average at chewing up the clock. The worse an offense is at eating the clock, the more possessions your defense will face; and the worse its per-game stats will look. (Through no fault of its own.) It's much more accurate to look at the defense's per play or per-drive stats; because these are not distorted by the no-huddle. Our yards allowed per running play stat is much better this year than it was this time last year.

Thanks for saving me some typing!

Good post. I agree this team has made significant progress in a number of areas. For example, there's a significant difference between what I've seen from the defense this year versus previous seasons. Some of that's coaching, some of it's Kiko, some of it's other factors. But regardless of whether it's been E.J. or Thad taking the snaps, we've still been getting bottom-12 level QB play. I realize Manuel is still a rookie, and Thad began the season on the practice squad. But until the Bills obtain a top-10 level of play from their QB, there will be a relatively low ceiling on what the team as a whole can accomplish. There will be those who point out that the Ravens won the Super Bowl back in 2000, without having a top-10 QB. But the Ravens had one of the three best defenses in NFL history; and the Bills will not replicate that. In the absence of a defense like that, we need a top-10 QB in order to win the Super Bowl. Right now we don't have one. Manuel may or may not develop into one. (I'm pessimistic on that score; but that's a subject for a different thread.) To make a long story short: as nice as it is to see the team as a whole make progress, I also need to see progress from the QB position for me to feel optimistic about the long term. If Option A is for Manuel to play like a top-10 QB upon returning from his injury, and for the Bills to lose every game between now and the end of the season; and if Option B is for him to continue to play like a bottom-10 QB, with the Bills getting lots of wins; Option A would be better for the long-term than Option B.

Ponder has averaged 6.9 yards per attempt so far this season; as compared to 6.7 yards per attempt for Fitz playing under Gailey. On the other hand, Ponder this season has thrown for just 2 TDs and 5 INTs. The Vikings would have been better off sticking it out with Ponder in the first place than they were getting distracted by Freeman. The main thing to be said in favor of the Freeman signing/start is that now that the Vikings have seen the alternative to Ponder, there might be a lot more support for him now than a week ago.

> Marcell Dareus was the right pick...at the time. There were those here who wrote--quite forcefully--that Dareus would never be more than average at the NFL level. They also wrote that A.J. Greene would likely become a great player. They wrote that any time you have a choice between an average player and a great player, you take the great player. You do that regardless of short-term needs. Going into the Dareus draft, the above-described point of view was not very popular on these boards. Anyone who expressed it was often treated like an idiot; too stupid to realize that a team without run defense should focus on DTs before WRs. At least thus far, those who wanted Greene over Dareus have been proved right. Every statement they'd made to support their pro-Greene, anti-Dareus arguments has been borne out by events. Anyone who favored Dareus over Greene going into that draft should admit that (at least thus far) events are proving him wrong. This isn't a case of 20/20 hindsight. This is a case where the vast majority of people here were focused on the short-term; whereas the pro-Greene people were focused on the long run. That difference in focus is why the pro-Greene people came to the correct conclusion. I'll grant that the temptation to focus on the short-term was high. Buffalo's run defense was getting run over; and that's the exact opposite of what a tough, blue collar fan base wants to see. On the other hand, using the 3rd overall pick on a WR would go against the belief that most top picks should be used on linemen, pass rushing LBs, or QBs. The temptation to engage in short-term thinking was definitely there. But the Bills' fan base could have (and should have) resisted that temptation!

Fixed!

My days as a fan don't go far enough back for Dufek and Marangi. But Rob Johnson, J.P. Losman, and Trent Edwards were much better quarterbacks than what we saw from Freeman! Even Billy Joe Hobart played at a higher level than what we saw from Freeman.

What makes the pick more frustrating is that we could have had A.J. Green or Locker.

IIRC, the Bills generated three turnovers; and committed only one turnover. They just barely pulled the win out of their posterior, despite being +2 in turnover margin. Sure, I'd love to believe that the Bills will continue to be +2 in turnovers each and every week, right up until they hoist the Lombardi Trophy over their heads. But that ain't gonna happen. Had the Bills played the Dolphins ten times, then in most of those games the turnover ratio would be much more even than what we saw on Sunday. With an even turnover ratio, the Dolphins win on Sunday, by a reasonably comfortable margin.