Orton's Arm

Tuel has looked very good in the preseason; whereas Jasper did not.

People--and this includes you--need to have a time horizon longer than just one season. An action can be in the long-term interests of the franchise, without necessarily being in its short-term interests. "Win now" sounds catchy, but that philosophy is not a substitute for a long-term blueprint. No sane blueprint for a Super Bowl winner includes Kolb at starting quarterback. A younger, unknown player--such as Manuel or Tuel--may be part of such a blueprint. If there's an opportunity to gain more information about our younger quarterbacks, and perhaps speed their development, and if a few extra losses is the price we pay for that information, then to someone with a long-term perspective, paying that price is well worth considering. Only to someone with a one season time horizon is his suggestion nonsensical.

The thing about Vick was that sometimes he'd play above his usual level--as he did in the game you mentioned. He had enough big games for the Falcons to lull them into thinking that they didn't need to give Schaub a chance. So they didn't. Instead they traded him to the Texans. The Texans sure got the better end of that trade, I can tell you that! And the Falcons looked foolish for having traded away the better of their two quarterbacks. Had Vick not done the dog thing--or had he not gotten caught--the Falcons could have lingered for years with a quarterback not bad enough to cut, but not good enough to do much in the postseason.

Good post. I'm glad that you got a chance to watch Tuel in college. To a much greater extent than in the NFL, college QBs' stats don't always indicate the quality of their play. If a QB's supporting cast dominates the defense, a QB can get great stats without necessarily playing at a great level. The reverse is also true. If I was going to quibble about something in your post, it would be your use of the word "potential." A lot of people use the word "potential" as shorthand for physical potential. A guy like Losman had a ton of physical potential. A rocket for an arm, fast legs. Everything you could want. But he didn't have much potential as an NFL quarterback, due to his lack of accuracy or information processing capability. Between Tuel and Manuel, which is more accurate? Which has greater information processing ability? I don't claim to have the answer to that. Without knowing that, I don't know which of those QBs has more potential.

> It's as if the bile has been accumulating since draft day . . . Most of the bile I've seen in this thread has been directed against those who see starting potential in Tuel. I've seen links to sites which had indicated--pre-draft--that Tuel has the potential to become a solid starter. We are not idiots, trolls, or "lacking in football knowledge" just because we think those sites might be right. Conversely, there was considerable pre-draft dissension about Manuel. Some experts believed he deserved to be the top-rated QB; others had him as fourth- or fifth-best. Prior to the draft, a poll was conducted on this site to see which QB fans favored. Manuel garnered maybe the 3rd or 4th most votes. But then after the draft, many fans changed their vote to Manuel, on the theory that the Bills' front office knows best. (Despite over a decade of proof to the contrary.) No one is asking the Bills to write Manuel off. We are merely asking for Tuel to be given a fair opportunity to compete for the starting position. The plan all along had been for Manuel and Kolb to compete to be the starter, so why not give Tuel some or all of the reps which would otherwise have gone to Kolb? There are those in this thread who seem to think Tuel must not be given any reps with the starters. And that the Bills should write off or heavily discount anything he does accomplish; on the theory that it was only done against second or third stringers.

Both Manuel and Tuel have better physical tools than Tom Brady. If either could have a remotely Brady-like career, it would be an incredible victory for the Bills. Back in the '90s, an UDFA QB tried out for the Packers. The Packers weren't thrilled with what they saw of him, so they released him. He then went to work at a minimum wage job. A year or two later, Kurt Warner tried out for the St. Louis Rams; and the rest is history. I'll grant that for every Kurt Warner story, there are very many Levi Brown stories. Statistically, the odds are heavily against Tuel becoming a starting-caliber quarterback. On the other hand, he has all the physical tools he needs. Plus he was accurate. And he seemed like he had a good command of the mental side of the game. This last point is the weakest. The preseason consists of vanilla offenses going up against vanilla defenses. Just because a QB has a strong grasp of a situation like that, does not mean he'll have equal mental command when the complexity of the regular season appears. The same could be said about Manuel's preseason performance.

Good point. Moorman is a great guy, and is one of my favorite all-time Bills players. At the same time, no one's career lasts forever. Sooner or later he was bound to be replaced by someone younger and better. As a rookie going into the NFL, Moorman himself displaced someone older/worse than he was. He understood that there would come a day when he was on the other side of that equation: when he was the old guy getting displaced. If it hadn't been Powell that displaced him, it would have been someone else. I'm not saying the situation was handled as well or gracefully as it could have been. But as others have pointed out, none of that was Powell's fault.

Good post! Some time back, the Falcons used the first overall pick on Vick. They used a later pick on Matt Schaub. Schaub went on to become a significantly better quarterback than Vick. Unfortunately for the Falcons, Schaub's success occurred in Houston, not Atlanta. He was never given a chance to compete for the starting position, because of Vick's draft status. By no means am I worried about Manuel abusing dogs, or engaging in vile off-the-field behavior. But what if, on the field, he's no better than Vick was for the Falcons, while Tuel is at or above Schaub's level? I'm just throwing this out there as a hypothetical question. Any statements about how good or bad Tuel's or Manuel's careers will be are obviously speculative. The only reason I bring this up is to point out that even if a backup/low draft status QB outplays the starter/high draft status guy, there's no guarantee that the backup will be seriously considered for the starting position.

Good article. My favorite part: ********* PFF Game Ball There was really only one contender here. The top-ranked quarterback after one week of preseason play, Jeff Tuel. ********

> Aren't you being a little quick on making your assessment on Kolb and his place on the roster? You could be right. I was against the Kolb signing from the beginning, which may mean I'm not giving him a fair shake now. If from this point forward he outplays both Manuel and Tuel, I wouldn't object to his re-inclusion in a competition for the starting spot. > However, jumping on the Tuel bandwagon off of the first preseason game in which he played against the scrubs is overreaching. I was not overreaching. If Tuel continues to play as well as he has, he deserves the chance to compete for the starting spot. I chose the word "compete" deliberately, to imply that he must outplay Manuel if he is to become the starter. > I liked how Tuel handled himself. He looked like an accurate Fitz. I thought Fitz could have been a very good quarterback if he'd only been accurate. If I could change one additional thing about him besides his accuracy, it would be his arm strength. Arm strength does not seem to be an issue for Tuel.

There are different ways of looking at things. According to conventional wisdom, Kolb should be more reliable than Manuel or Tuel, because Kolb is the veteran. Manuel should be better than Tuel, because Manuel is the first round pick; Tuel a rookie UDFA. Another way of looking at things is to ignore things like contract size, draft status, rookie/veteran status, and all that, and look only at what players show on the field. Nothing else. If you look only at that, then Manuel and Tuel deserve to be competing for the starting spot, and Kolb does not.

Great thread as usual Bill. I have a few thoughts on the QB situation: 1) Preseason play means simplified offenses going up against simplified defenses. Losman and Trent Edwards have both had good to very good preseasons. The nature of preseason helped mask their biggest deficiency--the inability to process large amounts of information quickly. That being said, Manuel looks like he's on or ahead of the schedule the coaches envisioned for him back when he was drafted. Tuel seems to have significantly better accuracy and physical tuels than Fitzpatrick. Kolb should be #3 on the depth chart, or released outright. Tuel should be given a chance to compete for the starting position.

This. The Bills need to learn more about what they have in Tuel. He's played head and shoulders above Kolb, yet unlike Kolb, he hasn't been given time with the first stringers.

We overachieve. Which may not always be a good thing: overachieving a few years ago cost us the chance to draft Andrew Luck.

I see two possibilities: 1) There is worthwhile new content which should be discussed, but isn't. 2) Nothing much has happened these last few months; which means that anything we'd discuss now is likely to be something we've been discussing off and on for the last several months. If 1) is the case, then you should be contributing something new to these boards. (As opposed to complaining about the lack of others' contributions.) If 2) is the case, then every time you come here, you should be mentally prepared to read threads about subjects which have been discussed before. Just so that I can contribute something new here: earlier in this thread, someone called Nix a dinosaur. For the record, dinosaurs were warm-blooded, birdlike animals. They dominated the Earth for 120 million years--about twice as long as mammals. The first dinosaur and the first mammal appeared at about the same time. The idea that mammals are somehow more advanced than dinosaurs is false. "That's all well and good," you might say, "but I don't see how any of it is football-related." Okay, maybe it's not directly football related. But if we accept the fact that Nix is a dinosaur, and that we've traditionally underestimated dinosaurs, and that birds are actually a type of dinosaur, and that the Bills really should re-sign Byrd, we can conclude . . . well, I'm sure there's got to be a football-related conclusion buried in there somewhere.

I've had my differences with K-9 also. But I don't see why someone would object to his posts in this thread. K-9 described Levitre as choosing to leave; not as being let go. That's not K-9 twisting facts to suit an agenda. He uses that same approach consistently, with all teams and all players. If a player's current team would have been willing to offer him at least the vet minimum to stay, then if that player leaves--even for $15 million a year--K-9 will describe the player as having chosen to leave. He will--always--vehemently deny that the player's original team had "let" him leave in free agency. This way of looking at things isn't something he cooked up specially for the Levitre situation. He's been strongly advocating this perspective for years--long before we lost Levitre. For the record, I disagree with that perspective. If a team does not make a credible offer to a player reaching the end of his contract, then to me that's tantamount to a decision to let the player walk in free agency. But even though K-9 has not (and will not) convince me, I don't think anyone can accuse him of trying to mislead, or lacking consistency. I think that he's genuinely convinced that his way of looking at this is the right one; and gets at least a little annoyed with people like me who see the matter differently.

This is a very reassuring post. I'm glad to hear your thoughts about Hairston's pre-injury rookie games. Now let's just hope he can return to the form he displayed then!

At the time, I was strongly opposed to the idea of the Bills using an early pick on a LT. But now that I've had the chance to think things over, I'm not as sure. Before his injury, Glenn was off to a very good start. After he returned from injury, not so much so. One explanation for that is that he was still playing hurt even after returning from his injury; thus diminishing his play. For his first few games as a Bill, Mario Williams produced almost nothing. Part of that was because of the wrist. But part was because of the replacement refs. The less enforcement of the rules there is, the more that helps offensive line in its war against the defensive line. If the offensive linemen facing Williams benefited from the lack of officiating, might Glenn have benefited also? Might those first few games have been a fluke, or a one-shot deal caused by the replacement refs? Hopefully Glenn improves, and overcomes the problems he experienced last year after returning from his injury, and this year in practice. But there's a significant chance he might not; in which case he may be better-suited for LG or RT than he is for LT. What is your opinion of Hairston at LT?

******** An Arizona Cardinals cheerleader, who was recently celebrated after joining the squad in 2011 as an Iraq war veteran, was arrested last month for allegedly beating up her boyfriend. . . . Police said Welter allegedly "began hitting, scratching and pulling on his hair." He then began recording the incident on his cellphone. Welter then called 911, claiming her boyfriend had smashed her head into the wall, and at some point he started to choke her, according to the report. ******* The full article is here.

Thanks for these links. I'm hesitant to become involved in this discussion; in no small part because of the high regard I have for Chandler81. He is one of my favorite moderators; and one of my favorite posters irrespective of moderator status. However, his comment to you in that thread was disrespectful; and his recent comment here was more so. I don't know what past history you and he may have; or what his reasons may be for feeling as he does. But nothing I saw you do in that discussion justified his disrespectful tone. You expressed an opinion about the Byrd negotiations. Others may or may not agree with that opinion; but it should be possible to express disagreement without the use of personal attacks. From the terms of service: "Courtesy is contagious - Just become someone doesn't share your opinion - doesn't make them an idiot." Chandler81's post increased the temperature in the room; and did so in a way which moved what had been a difference of opinion several steps closer to a petty personal squabble. If I was a professional writer deciding whether to join this forum, I would not want to see list moderators violate the spirit of the terms of service--especially not in their interactions with other professional writers. JohnC argues that you should grow thicker skin and ignore the comments of list moderators. I disagree: I'd argue that list moderation policy is the single most important characteristic of any given discussion board. Most discussion boards have few if any mechanisms with which moderators can be held accountable for their actions. When I'm deciding whether to participate in a given discussion board, I ask myself, can I trust the mods to do the right thing, even in the absence of standards of accountability? The more nervous I become about the answer to that question, the more likely I am to vote with my feet and migrate to some other board. I'm happy with the overall list moderation situation on this list, and with Chandler81's performance as a moderator. As far as I'm concerned, this incident represents a one-time deviation from what has generally been a positive pattern from him and the other moderators.

Do you have a link to the discussion in which this occurred? I'd like to gather more information before drawing hard and fast conclusions.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that if the Bills want a once-in-a-generation talent at DE, they need to get serious, and stop Clowneying around. On a more serious note, I too would favor acquiring the first round picks you described. Trading away Byrd seems like a good place to start. When it comes to Byrd, the worst-case scenario is losing him--either this year or next--with no draft picks to show for it. The best-case scenario probably consists of trading him away for more than he's worth--such as a first round pick from a team likely to pick in the top-5. Because of the importance of the situation, one could almost say that .

Admittedly this is from back in 2001. But it still counts! (Sort of.)

Thanks for the link. I just finished reading Football Outsiders' description of their various statistical ranking systems. At first glance, I don't see any glaringly obvious flaws in what they've done. (Conversely, QB rating has a glaringly obvious flaw: a completed pass for 0 yards is considered much better than an incompletion.) That said, their two statistical measures yield different results. In 2010, Matt Schaub had the 8th best DYAR, and the 13th best VOA. In 2011, his DYAR worsened from 8th best to 10th best; whereas his VOA improved from 13th best to 5th best. It's not clear whether they think he did better or worse in 2011 than he had in 2010. In a nutshell, you are correct to point out that Schaub's numbers with respect to the above matrices are not as impressive as his YPA. That's worth bearing in mind when evaluating his performance as a QB.

> But EA seemed to making the argument that Schaub should be considered elite because he > had a similar individual stat to Manning and Brady which is reportedly the most important > correlative to winning percent. There are a number of QB stats one could look at. Completion percentage. QB rating. Yards per attempt. Touchdowns. Etc. There will always be an argument about which of those stats to ignore, which to pay attention to, and how much to weight them. I tend to stress YPA and INT percentage: both because those are the ones correlated with winning, and because they are among the most difficult to distort. (Conversely, a QB who wants to inflate his completion percentage or QB rating should dump the ball off a lot. Which is precisely what Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick, and others have done to inflate their completion percentages and QB ratings.) > Yet it doesn't seem to correlate in Schaub's case. The fact that Schaub's YPA and INT percentage are comparable to Manning's and Brady's strongly suggests his individual contribution to winning games is comparable to Manning's or Brady's. But the Texans have typically not had a complete football team--certainly not nearly as complete as the Patriots or Colts teams which had gone deep into the playoffs. > Picking one number doesn't make him elite when most of the other numbers don't support the claim. I'm not sure which other numbers you have in mind, but many numbers one might cite are meaningless. For example, John Elway and Kelly Holcomb have about the same career completion percentage and QB rating. This is because Holcomb inflated his completion percentage with a lot of short passes; whereas Elway did the opposite. However, Elway has a commanding advantage over Holcomb in yards per attempt--correctly indicating that Elway was by far the better quarterback.