Orton's Arm

Good post. My guess is that he'll become more socially engaged with his teammates now that he's the starter. Either way, I'm glad to hear he's been significantly more accurate than Manuel.

Pretend you've never thrown a football before. Then you go out one day with some friends, and start throwing it around just for fun. Every time you throw it, it goes exactly where you want it to. At first you're attempting basic throws. But with those working so well, you try more complicated ones. Those also go exactly where you want. You find you're able to hit moving targets right on the money, every time. You can hit targets deep. You even discover you can successfully make every throw on Alex Tanney's video, on your very first try. Somewhere along the way, you're going to become very confident in your ability to throw the football. Now imagine another scenario. Your college coach has only asked you to throw to your first read, and then only when he's wide open. You find that you're good at throws like those. Everyone tells you how great you are, and you believe them. But then you get into the NFL. The coaches start asking you to do things you hadn't done in college. You try and try to do those things, and find you are able to do them some of the time. But more often than not, you fail. The more failure you experience, the less confident you become. In games, you try to avoid NFL-type throws (lack of confidence) while focusing on the kinds of throws at which you succeeded in college. To make a long post short: if Manuel lacks confidence or has lost his confidence, it's probably because he's realized he doesn't have the ability to make NFL-only throws. At least not with any consistency. Lack of ability is driving his lack of confidence.

If things play out the way you described, the parallels between Holcomb/Losman and Orton/Manuel would be even stronger. That being said, if I'm the Bills' coaching staff, I don't reinsert Manuel into the starting lineup until he shows very good accuracy in practice. If he never shows consistently good accuracy in practice, I'd never reinsert him into the starting lineup. I'd also want to see him consistently make multiple reads in practice before putting him back in as a starter. If he can't learn to be accurate, or if he can't learn to make multiple reads, then I'd have no interest in giving him more playing time. At some point you have to admit the front office made a bad draft choice, and move on.

Good analysis. I'm happy that Orton's percentage of unforced errors is noticeably lower than Manuel's (at least in the games you analyzed). To be honest, I was hoping for an even more dramatic difference, but I'll take what I can get. If his unforced errors percentage in the Eagles game is representative of what he does overall, I hope the Bills take a QB in next year's draft. (Assuming a good one is available.)

It's possible for a team to have an incompetent QB and an incompetent offensive coordinator at the same time. Having one of those things does not preclude having the other. We know that Manuel is an incompetent QB--at least at the moment--based on the inaccuracy of his throws and his apparent inability to see open targets. (Nor does his college tape suggest he has a much higher ceiling than what we've seen thus far.) Putting a credible replacement in lets us better evaluate the offensive coordinator (among others). Houston ganged up on the run and dared the Bills to beat them with the pass. That can (and in this case did) result in open targets--especially for a team with as much receiving talent as Buffalo. Granted, all those open targets reflect well on Hackett; as you hinted at in your post. But before putting the anointing oil on Hackett, let's first see how well he does at generating open targets against a team which knows it has to respect the Bills' passing attack; and which has a decent secondary.

Manuel was a one read college QB who ran a simplified offense. More often than not, guys like that don't "grow into" the complexity of a real NFL offense, no matter how much time you give them. It was becoming increasingly obvious that Manuel wasn't going to be an exception to that general rule.

That phrase is based on an archaic meaning of the word "proves." The word "prove" once meant "to test" or "to challenge the strength of." If people started talking about "the exception that tests or challenges the rule," it would make considerably more sense.

> I just see this as Kelly Holcomb all over again. And I think EJ has more potential than JP. The parallels are there. Losman got benched after the first four games of his second season. Just like Manuel. Both Losman and Manuel have great physical tools. Strong arms, quick feet. Neither had established himself as a pocket passer in college. Neither QB has great accuracy. But Losman is less inaccurate than Manuel. Neither could process on-field information quickly or well. (But it's possible Losman was a little less horrendous than Manuel in that regard as well.) They squeezed one good year out of Losman by focusing on what he did well (long bombs to Lee Evans) while de-emphasizing the things he wasn't good at (just about everything else). It also helped that they simplified the offense. I'm not sure how they're supposed to do that with Manuel. If you were to start listing the things he does well, that list would consist of . . . ? Also, it's not like they can realistically simplify the offense much more than they already have. But even if you could somehow squeeze that one good year out of Manuel, so what? In no way, shape, or form is Manuel the long-term answer. If you're looking for a short-term stopgap, Kyle Orton gives us that already.

The phrase is a farming metaphor. "A tough row to hoe" dates back to the late 1800s, and "a hard row to hoe" dates back to the early 1800s. To return to the original subject: when Orton gets thrown into the lions' den (so to speak), I expect him to look better than Manuel, but not as good as Fitzpatrick. But by the second half of the season, it wouldn't surprise me if Orton looked at least as good as Fitzpatrick had while he was in Buffalo.

> Ultimately what it means is that the Bills don't have a QB. The Bills haven't had a QB since Kelly hung up his cleats. At least now they're admitting they don't have a QB. Had they made that admission this past offseason, they could have drafted Bridgewater or (with the right trade) Bortles. > It also means that the entire organization will get blown up. Several years ago, only one candidate was seriously interviewed for the GM position: Buddy Nix. Nix had already become part of the Bills organization, and was considered safe and familiar. Known. The same thing happened this past time around; with only Whaley getting interviewed for the job. (Again because he was considered safe and familiar.) Safe and familiar doesn't always equate to greatness. Nor is Whaley off to a great start. In his first draft, he made the following choices: 1) Go "all in" on Manuel by drafting a WR this year and trading away next year's first round pick. 2) Use his second round pick on a guy who (thus far) appears to be a bust. An offensive lineman Bill from NYC warned us against. 3) Overpay for Chris Williams 4) Fail to solve the Bills' problems at OG I realize general managers are normally given more time than Whaley has received. But with the exception of the Henderson pick, nothing he's done thus far suggests he's the right answer. His "all in" approach to EJ suggests he might not be the right guy to choose the Bills' next QB. > Another GM, another coach, another QB search. Better to keep searching until you have the right guys, than to content yourself with the wrong ones in an effort to create stability. I also have hopes that Pegula's search process will be better than Ralph Wilson's. I doubt it could be much worse.

If Elway "knew quarterbacks," the Broncos wouldn't have burned a first round pick on Tebow in the first place. When Tebow was drafted, my instant reaction was, There's a waste of a first round pick. Better for this to happen to them than to us. A few years later, the same thing did happen to us!

By the time the Bills play the Lions, Orton will have been on the roster 5 - 6 weeks. I'm far from convinced that's enough time to learn a new NFL offense. Even if it is, he'll have had only one week to develop any kind of chemistry with the starting receivers. He'll be going up against the #1 ranked defense. As though all this was not enough, the Bills have issues at offensive guard. I expect Orton to look worse than he has in the past--at least for the next game or two. But I also expect him to show steady improvement as he becomes more familiar with the offense and the receivers.

This. Manuel avoids throws beyond 5 yards (Trent Edwards), has accuracy issues (Fitzpatrick, but worse), no information processing ability (Losman), and lacks any kind of pocket presence (a hint of Rob Johnson). Nor was Manuel anything special in college; unless one's definition of "special" is a one read QB with accuracy issues. We're not talking the next Joe Montana here. Giving him time to "develop" is not the answer. Nothing about his college performance remotely suggests he's earned that development time. The sooner the Bills realize that drafting him was a boneheaded move, the better.

The plan you're suggesting seems to be for the Bills to march down the field in a many-play, "kill them with a thousand small cuts" type drive. First down. Second down. Third down. Convert. Repeat again and again, until you get a TD. Hypothetically speaking, let's say the Bills adopted that approach. Let's say they ran the ball two plays out of three, and threw it one play out of three. Odds are the Bills RBs would average less than 5 yards per carry on a drive like that, especially with the Texans loading up to stop the run. This means the quarterback has to generate positive yardage on his one play out of the three. If he doesn't, the Bills have to punt. The QB doesn't necessarily have to give them great yardage. But he has to give them something, each and every time he drops back to pass. There was no way that was going to happen with Manuel. With Manuel under center, you're not going to have sustained, many-play drives like that. (Not unless your running game is so good that almost nothing is required from your quarterback.) Manuel is going to make at least as many bad plays as good ones. Your only hope of scoring is to rip off big chunks of yards quickly. You hope that by the time his bad play kills the drive, at least you're in field goal range. It's not like he's going to give you a large number of competent plays in a row. (Which is what you need for that many-play drive of yours to result in a TD.) Instead, you have him throw a 3 yard pass to Fred Jackson, and hope that he turns it into a 40 yard gain. Or, you have Mike Williams get so ridiculously wide open there's no one in his same zip code, you have Manuel heave a pass in his general direction, and then have Williams run it in for an 80 yard TD. Big plays like that are the only way to score when your offense (and your quarterback) are incapable of putting together a long string of small, successful plays.

> 23 runs and 44 passes against one of the worst rushing defenses and best pass rusher in the NFL. A good running game can mask weaknesses in your passing attack. We saw a lot of that in weeks 1 and 2. It's quite possible Hackett passed up the chance to do that against Houston. (Although I think Dave McBride brings up a very good point about how, in the second half, the Texans loaded up against the run and dared Manuel to beat them.) Ignore Manuel's draft position. Ignore the hype. Ignore his supposed "potential." Ignore the "front office knows best" mentality which sold so many Bills fans on him in the first place. Focus on his actual play; and ask yourself if there's anything there which even remotely suggests he'll ever be great? At the moment, he has a long way to go to even reach basic competence. He's not making basic throws any third string NFL quarterback should be able to make. The accuracy just isn't there. Nor is the field vision or decision-making. If Marrone loses the locker room, his career in Buffalo is done. With reasonably competent quarterback play, the Bills would have beaten Houston; quite possibly by double digits. If you're Doug Marrone, how do you explain to your locker room that instead of putting a competent QB out there (Kyle Orton), you're willing to sacrifice wins for the sake of developing one player? These players have worked very hard to prepare for this season. Had Marrone kept Manuel under center, all that hard work would be for naught. Peyton Manning's career had a number of bumps early on. A four interception performance inspired Jim Mora's playoffs rant. Some of his early career statistics were less than sparkling. But amidst the errors and rookie mistakes, you could also see flashes of greatness. He'd put in a commanding performance for a series here or a drive there. Eventually, the rookie mistakes became less and less; while those flashes became his usual level of play. It was reasonably obvious to someone watching Manning as a rookie that he had the potential to develop into something special. Manuel's play hasn't been like that at all. There isn't a reason to keep investing in the guy--giving him snaps his play on the field hasn't earned--when he's done absolutely nothing which remotely suggests he'll ever achieve greatness in the NFL. It's time to turn the page. I personally suspect that Hackett may need to go as well. But it's not like the Bills can go out and hire a really good replacement offensive coordinator right this instant. Rightly or wrongly, he'll get at least until the end of the season to prove what he can do. Without a competent quarterback, it's hard to evaluate your receiving corps. Or your running game that matter; because defenses will load up against the run and dare you to beat them with the pass. Also, the absence of a competent quarterback makes it hard to evaluate your offensive coordinator. Especially when the incompetent quarterback in question only makes one read. I'm guessing that Orton's understanding of the offense is only partial. My hope is that by the second half of the season, he'll understand the offense well enough--and be playing well enough--to give the Bills the chance to fairly and accurately evaluate their receivers, tight ends, running game, offensive line, and offensive coordinator.

Keep us posted on any analysis you decide to do. But I don't want to be overly greedy here; and I realize you've already given quite a bit of your time.

> I don't have a clue how you came to this conclusion based on the evidence posted in this thread. There were a number of basic throws that EJ missed. Throws that any backup NFL quarterback should be able to make, if he wants to keep his roster spot. The OP helped quantify those throws. > This thread basically says that there are more factors involved in the Bills loss yesterday than just EJ. Agreed. Manuel wasn't the Bills' sole problem. Back when we had Rob Johnson, we also had what had to have been one of the worst offensive lines in NFL history. Other than Ruben Brown, there was nobody on that line. (The other four players were Fina, Ostrosky, Lacina, and Nails, IIRC.) Or consider Losman. The Bills had offensive line problems during his tenure in Buffalo as well, especially in 2005 and 2007. There were also problems at #2 WR and at TE. Or consider Trent Edwards. The Bills had offensive line problems during his time at quarterback, not to mention some truly horrendous offensive coaching. And no TE. If your plan is to wait until a QB has become the sole source of the team's problems before calling that quarterback a bust, you're going to wait a very long time. Most teams have multiple problems. That's especially true of poorly-run teams such as the Bills. If you wait to correct the quarterback problem until all other problems have been fixed; you'll pass up valuable opportunities to draft a good replacement QB. (Much like the opportunities the Bills passed up this past draft.)

For the record, I don't think Tuel deserved more chances than he was given. That said, you've brought up an interesting point. Over the past 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on DBs, and another 25% on RBs. That's half their first picks of the draft, while positions like OT and QB have been largely neglected. In identifying reasons why this pattern existed, one poster pointed to the fact that DBs and RBs are considered relatively easy positions to evaluate. If the Bills' front office has typically shied away from using early picks on OTs or QBs, it's because they've generally lacked the competence to evaluate those players successfully. What happens when a front office which isn't good at talent evaluation decides it must use a first round pick on a QB anyway? When something like that happens, you're typically going to get a QB with very good measurables. It's much easier to determine whether a quarterback is physically gifted; than it is to figure out if he has the accuracy or fast information processing ability needed to succeed in the NFL. This emphasis on physical gifts results in QBs like Losman and Manuel. The question the Bills should be asking isn't where Manuel was picked. They should ask where he should have been picked, based on the data available. Based on the accuracy and decision-making he displayed in college, Manuel should not have been selected before the fourth round. (And that's being extremely generous.) Suppose a fourth round pick played the way Manuel is playing. Would a standard-issue NFL team sit their Kyle Orton so that their poorly performing fourth rounder could be given playing time and chances to develop? No, they absolutely would not do that. The only reason to play Manuel at this point is because of his first round status. The Bills chose him in the first round not because he'd demonstrated good accuracy or decision-making--he hadn't--but because he was physically gifted and he interviewed well. Good interview skills are not sufficient reason to write off a season. Especially not when you've already traded away next year's first round pick to Cleveland!

> Bridgewater is a very accurate thrower who can all the throws and played in a true pro style offense. This is the exact type of quarterback I wish the Bills would draft! Maybe someday we'll get a competent front office. . . . /looks hopeful

Excellent. In that case, maybe we can talk the OP into doing the second analysis of which I spoke. But either way, I'm appreciative of what he's already given us. I don't see posts like his very often.

Very good post and good analysis! You seem to have done a workmanlike job of quantifying the effect of Manuel's inaccuracy. Well-researched posts like this are above and beyond the call of duty. Thank you for the time and effort you put in. It's unfortunate that we as fans only have television footage; as opposed to the film NFL teams use. If we had that film, you could do a second analysis. (Not to sound greedy or anything.) This second analysis would be to quantify the effect Manuel's decision-making had on the outcome of the game. Cases where (for example) a WR might have been open 20 yards downfield, but Manuel chose to throw to some 3 yard dump-off option instead. But in the absence of NFL-type film, we're probably not going to be able to quantify the number of times Manuel made less-than-optimal decisions. In the absence of that kind of hard number, it's worth bearing in mind that whatever pain his poor decision-making inflicts is in addition to the pain which you have quantified.

> Whaley may get to stay though.....if he can put the EJ fiasco on Marrone and Nix. The year before Bill Parcells became the GM of the Dolphins, they'd used a second round pick on a QB. A guy who was supposedly their quarterback of the future. Parcells wasn't impressed, which is why he used a second round pick on a QB of his own choosing, in the very first year of his tenure. Neither quarterback worked out. But at least Parcells could legitimately say that he'd realized the previous regime's second round QB was going to be a bust. Whaley is going to have an extremely difficult time making the same argument WRT Manuel. Whaley was almost certainly part of the pro-Manuel "consensus" within the Bills' front office at the end of Nix's tenure. Also, nothing about Whaley's actions as GM up to this point suggest the slightest hint of doubt about Manuel. Not only did he seem determined to build a team around Manuel, but he also traded away our first round pick in next year's draft. The more Manuel plays, the more evident our need for that first round pick becomes. If I'm Pegula, and if Whaley tries to sell me on the idea he had serious doubts about Manuel all along, I'd ask, "Why didn't you attempt to trade up for Bortles? Or, if they simply refused to trade, why didn't you at least hold onto your first round pick in next year's draft?" The other point to bear in mind is that if Whaley escapes all blame for the Manuel bust, he also evades credit for all the good picks made that year. (Kiko and Woods.) Which means his only source of credit will be the good picks he made this year. Watkins is a very good player. But not necessarily a better player than had generally been expected prior to the draft. (At least not thus far.) Whaley's second round pick looks to be a bust (at least thus far). Bill from NYC expressed disappointment with that pick at the time it was made--a reaction which thus far has been completely justified. Other than Henderson, it's hard to argue that Whaley has done anything special as GM; whereas the Kouandjio pick and his evident faith in Manuel are causes for serious concern. When I watched Manuel's college highlight reel, I was shocked. Nearly every throw I saw was to Manuel's first read; on a play when that first read was wide open. These were throws I'd expect a typical high school quarterback to make, assuming a reasonable level of arm strength. Put another way: any high school quarterback who lacks the accuracy or decision-making to complete those throws should be benched. It's possible that, somewhere in the Bills' film archives, they have a treasure trove of great throws Manuel made as a college QB. Throws which somehow didn't make it onto that highlight video. Throws which went above and beyond anything you'd expect from a high school QB. If I'm Pegula, I'd ask Whaley to show me those throws--assuming they exist--as part of his explanation for why he went all-in on Manuel. If Whaley can't show Pegula throws like those, then he used entirely the wrong process to select his quarterback of the future. There would be no need for Pegula to keep someone like that on as GM--especially not when the Bills' biggest single need is at quarterback.

> EJ has potential. The sooner this mirage is abandoned, the better. The two most important traits a QB can have are accuracy and fast information processing speed. Manuel demonstrated neither trait in college. Nor has he done so in the NFL. There is nothing which remotely suggests he has "potential"--at least not for the two traits which matter most. Yes, he has very good physical traits. The NFL is littered with physically gifted first round busts. Also, if you make a list of the best QBs in the league today--Manning, Brees, Brady, Rodgers--how many of those guys have great physical tools? Those guys are Hall of Fame material not because they're the biggest or fastest or strongest; but because they're the most accurate and the best at processing information quickly. Nothing about Manuel's college play suggests he should have been chosen in the first or second round. He did nothing, demonstrated nothing, which would cause a competently-run football team to commit to him as "the plan." The solution is not to replace Manuel. The solution is to replace the people who chose Manuel. Anyone who would make worse decisions than those I would make has absolutely no business running the front office of an NFL football team. None.

> Working with the equivalent of a mental fitness coach is no more a sign of weakness than is working with a strength and conditioning coach. Agreed. For example: someone will accomplish more with positive visualization than he would have without it. The right mental fitness coach can teach you techniques like that. The fact that Manuel is reaching out to a mental fitness coach is an indication he's making a good faith effort to save his career. Nothing wrong with that. But all the positive visualization in the world isn't going to turn a 100 pound weakling into a starting-caliber NFL guard. Nor will it turn Manuel into a starting-caliber quarterback.

If I had to choose between Manuel and Trent Edwards, I'd take Edwards. Neither quarterback is going to throw the ball more than 5 yards past the line of scrimmage. (Except on extremely rare occasions.) But at least Edwards' 0 - 5 yard passes are going to be more accurate than Manuel's.