Orton's Arm

Does this mean that Hitner will start singing about ?

Good article! Somewhere along the way, breast cancer awareness became an end in itself. As the article pointed out, breast cancer awareness represents an excellent opportunity for charities to raise a lot of money and scare a lot of women. It's also a good opportunity for companies to "pinkwash" their dirty deeds; or to market to women. If they were ever to find a cure for breast cancer, that whole gravy train would be eliminated. Maybe that's why only a tiny percentage of the money raised for breast cancer awareness is spent on finding cures. My understanding is also that most of the money spent on research goes towards varients of chemo/radiation; even though there may not be much untapped potential with such treatments. On the other hand, research into alternatives to chemo/radiation typically receives very little funding; even though this is where there's the most potential for progress.

I agree with every word of your description of Fitz's shortcomings as a QB. His accuracy was spotty at best. That said, I think he's a good guy, and I wish him success in Tennessee.

I agree that Levitre is a much better football player than Walker or Dockery. However, the Titans vastly overpaid for him. Had the Bills wanted to keep Levitre, we would have had to overpay by even more. Had we done that, we would have driven up the price for Wood and Glenn. Believe you me, I'm not happy about having lost Levitre. You could drive a truck through the hole the Bills have at LG. But when another team decides to greatly overpay for one of your free agents, it creates problems. Whether you offer to overpay by an even greater margin, or whether you let the free agent walk, you're still getting punished. The only way to avoid that punishment is to extend your best players before they hit free agency. Which the Bills obviously failed to do with Levitre.

Cash, I have to give you credit. You've written a good post. To expand on your point 4) a little: it's true the targeted WRs weren't getting open against their coverage. But on each of the plays analyzed, EJ was locking in to one guy in particular. He was surrendering all available opportunities, except the one opportunity created by the target he'd locked into. I realize this is normal for a rookie QB; but it's going to greatly limit the offense until or unless it's corrected. Obviously, the whole situation is worsened by the Arena Football League quality blocking of Colin Brown.

Thanks. I appreciate this post as well.

O.J. Simpson

Part of the problem the last time around was the decision to overpay for Derrick Dockery and Langston Walker. Peters saw he was the most valuable offensive lineman; yet was collecting the third-highest salary on the OL. That's a recipe for resentment. (And why it's a good thing we didn't overpay for Levitre.)

This kind of thinking annoys me. The preseason is useful. Think of all the Bills players who looked great in preseason before being allowed to take regular season snaps. Stevie Johnson, Fred Jackson, etc. The preseason is a chance for us as fans to see guys we can't necessarily see in regular season. It's also another evaluation tool for NFL front office people to use. The preseason is good. The only reason it's "loathed" is because of the idiotic decision to charge exactly the same price for preseason games as is charged for regular season games. If a guy selling hamburgers prices them like steaks, of course there's going to be resentment. Products with different perceived value should be priced differently. The glaringly obvious solution to the preseason "problem" is to charge maybe 1/3 as much for preseason games as for regular season games. Sell concessions at a moderate discount WRT regular season prices. You could get stadiums nice and full that way. You could draw in casual fans who might not want to pay full price for a regular season game. (Expand the fan base.) Most preseason snaps are taken by backup players anyway; so it's not like reducing the number of preseason games will save much wear and tear on the starters. A preseason like that would make money for the NFL, it would give teams a chance to better evaluate their backup players and young talent; and it would give fans the chance to enjoy preseason football at a fair price for the product. This solution is logical, which is why it's a win all around. The only problem with the existing preseason is the illogical way it's priced. Efforts have been made to ram that illogic down fans' throats, through season ticket packages and other means.

I'm very comfortable with Glenn's pass protection. I'd like to hear people's thoughts and observations about his run blocking.

Here's your Tebow reference!

I agree with the issues you've listed. But I also think you have to give Manuel more than one year to correct them. Players tend to be drafted by the teams which are most optimistic about them. A team which was very optimistic about a particular player in the first place is unlikely to change that mindset after just one year. Especially if that player plays a difficult-to-learn position like QB. A lot of the weaknesses you've described could have been predicted before the draft. But either the Bills ignored or incorrectly interpreted some of the negative data they had; or else they convinced themselves those weaknesses could be corrected through good coaching. Either way, they've committed themselves to an experiment which will take more than one year to complete.

Good post. I currently live in the Tampa Bay area; and I sometimes get a chance to listen to sports radio while driving around. The general consensus is that there are extremely serious concerns with Freeman; and that Tampa would be foolish to offer him anywhere near the going rate for starting QBs as a contract extension. The sports radio guys have questioned Freeman's work ethic, leadership, accuracy, mental ability, etc. You seem to be doing the same, and you have the statistics to back up your assertions.

It was a good article; and does maybe a better job of clearing Hackett than I'd expected. Some of Spiller's lack of success is indeed on Manuel; because it's Manuel's job to audible out of running plays if the defense is stacking the box. That said, Hacket isn't cleared entirely: when Spiller does get the ball, it should usually be out in space; or at least with the chance to get to open space. Ramming him up the middle, time and time again, is like using a Corvette only as a tow truck. Hackett's offense requires a high mental bandwidth QB to succeed. I have no doubt that Fitz could be effective in such an offense; except to the extent his lack of accuracy hampered him. I don't expect a rookie QB to handle the mental side of the game as well as someone like Fitz. If in time Manuel can learn to handle the mental side of this offense, it will look a lot better than it does now. If he can't, then we have a need at quarterback.

The problem with the stat's you're using is that this year's team uses a no-huddle offense; thereby significantly increasing the number of plays per game. That makes this year's offense look better than it should; and this year's defense look worse than it should. The correct stats to be using are yards per play stats and/or points per drive stats. Unlike x--per-game stats, per-play or per-drive stats are immune to the inflation effect caused by the no-huddle.

I was among those opposed to drafting Manuel. I didn't change my mind after the draft; because I trust my own judgement more than I trust the Bills' front office. I'm also among those curious about Tuel. Odds are against him becoming the successor to Kelly, but at least I'd like to see what he could do. That said, when a team uses a first round pick on a QB, it shouldn't then give up on him after just three games. "Would Mr. Darcy then consider the rashness of your original intention as atoned for by your obstinacy in adhering to it?" Jane Austin, Pride and Prejudice, chapter 10. In this case, the answer to Elizabeth's question is yes. However rash the Bills may have been in drafting Manuel, they must now be obstinate in adhering to him. At least until he's been given a fair chance. If at the end of two years Manuel is still struggling with the mental side of the game, then the Bills will have to start thinking about going in a different direction.

They found that bucket of water, and his name was Reinhardt. The Bills' front office believes that if, at first you succeed at LG, keep trying and trying until you get it wrong.

There is nothing about the playcalling which suggests creativity, adaptability, or even a basic understanding of how to use Spiller. There is no evidence to suggest Hackett is a competent offensive coordinator; and plenty to indicate he's in over his head. The time to raise an eyebrow has come.

Agreed. If you have a guy playing well at a valuable position (LT), why move him to a less valuable position (LG)? That would be a waste of Glenn's ability. If the Bills obtain a top-10 pick, it would make much more sense to use the pick on a pass rusher than on a LT.

Good post.

Good post. Thanks for saving me some typing. Due to RBs' short shelf life, it typically makes sense to have most of the other pieces in place before using an early pick on one. Even then, it's worth bearing in mind that unless your RB is named Jim Brown or Barry Sanders, the success of the running game will typically have a lot more to do with the OL than with the RB. Also, your passing game is much more important than your running attack anyway. Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs. Another 25% were used on DBs. Very few first picks of the draft were used on key positions like QB and OT.

I like the stats you're using more than yards per game stats. The problem with yards per game is that if the offense inflates the number of plays per game (for example by going no huddle), the defense's stats will be harmed through not fault of its own.

When EJ was picked, my emotions weren't all that different from how I felt after the Home Run Throwback or the Bills' Super Bowl losses. (I'd wanted Barkley.) Unlike many others here, I never jumped on EJ's bandwagon after he was picked. I also concur that he had a bad game yesterday; and that even his performances in the first two games was overrated. All this being said, I do not feel Hackett can hack it. Look at the way he's utilizing Spiller, and compare that to what Gailey did last season. Hackett has created a simple, predictable, ill-conceived offense. Not all of that can be blamed on the fact that he's game planning for a rookie QB who'd never demonstrated the ability to handle complex offenses at the college level.

Agreed. The decision to let Reinhardt walk is inexplicable.