JohnC

It is difficult to have more creativity to your running game when your two best runners are hurt and the OL, as it is presenty playing, is one of the worst in the league. Without a doubt those factors curtail your options. Orton is playing very well. His efficiency is very good. A source of that success can be attributed to the relatively conservative way he is being used. You have to remember that he came to this team very late and even when he was on the roster he was not getting starting reps. The more he plays and gets familiar with the players the more expansive his game will become. The Jet game was a unique situation. It was very apparent that with Smith and a rusty Vick that our defense had their offense under control. That certainly played a major role into how the game was called. Don't allow this individual game to make assumptions on how the future game plans will develop. Take the win and the positives out of this game. Appreciate that the Bills are in a favorable situation that they haven't been in for more than a decade. The team is still very far from being a finished product. Even with its flaws this team is moving in the right direction.

Excellent comments. A well thought out post that has a wider perspective to what is going on in the field.

Orton has the ability to check into another play as do all qbs. If the defense is stacked where the run is gong to go the qb has the option to change the play. So I'm not sure what your point is. Your comment that you hate that Orton is making both Marrone and Hackett look competent is baffling. So you want the qb to make the coaches look poorly and hurt the team? Hackett is calling plays for a team that has major deficiencies on the OL. He is also calling a game for one of the least mobile qbs in the game. Running the ball, even if not effective, is a reasonable thing to do if you want to make sure that your qb is in a better position to survive the inadequacies of the line. Just maybe the best way to use Orton is as he is being used now. He is more of a selective and judicious passer than a prolific passer. His passing numbers are not very guady but the team is winning. Adjustments are made for individual games. In this game the conservative approach worked well enough. I'm more than satisfied with how the coaches and the qb handled this game that resulted in a win. I also understand the restlessness of many fans with the conservative approach to the game plan. However, a win's a win, especially on the road. Orton

I'm going agains the grain here. He called a sound game. I'm aware that many people get frustrated with his numerous runs up the middle but he is emphasizing those types of runs because he wants to keep the defense somewhat off balance and protect his qb. Having an even minimally effective running game restrains the defense from going full bore forward against one of the least mobile qbs in the league. I described him in another thread as having the mobility of a one legged stork. This was a game in which it was appropriate to be very cautious in the passing game because our defense for most of the game had the Jets stymied on offense. If you recall the Chargers took the same approach, especially in the second half, in their game against us. Overall, I thought Hackett called a smart game. For him the challenge is to come up with a good strategy for a team that has serious issues on the OL. In this game I thought his playcalling was prudent and smart for the way the game was developing.

Gotham Bill, Standard great stuff. I thought our defensive backfield played well today. They were helped out with a lot of line pressure. Not only did the starters on the DL play well but the rotational players played to a level where there was no drop off. The Gilmore/McKelvin duo are a high end tandem. I thought McKelvin played a terrific game. In a league that stresses and favors the passing game I never understood the harsh criticisms (Badol I'm especially referring to you!) What this game clearly demonstrates is that no team can compete unless it has a reasonable level of quarterback play. If you have poor quarterback performances your team not only doesn't stand a chance but the team is unbearable to watch. Orton is far from being a prolific passer but he does throw a nice ball and he is accurate. He has a good feel for the pocket but he also has the mobility of a one legged stork. Without a doubt Marrone saved the season when he resolutely made the qb switch because he was not going tolerate an inadequate level of play that was submarining the offense and the team. I was very upset and disappointed with Watkins showboat act that could have been costly.He acted out of character and I'm sure he will learn from his foolishness. If this team wants to compete for a playoff spot up to the end of the season it needs to find a running game. In this game I would have liked to have seen more runs by Brown. The loyal fans deserve to have some late season meaningful games for a change.

I respectfully but strenuously disagree with you. Just because you have a need you shouldn't reach for that need in the draft or for that matter in free agency. The draft strategy that in the end works out best is drafting the best players. When you do that over a period of time you build a stronger roster. Of course a team's need is a consideration but the major criterion should be talent level regardless of position unless there is a surplus at that particular position. I would take a similar approach in free agency. Don't overreach and overpay to fill a positional need. If you have to go with a lesser talent at a more reasonable price that is much smarter approach than excessively paying for a need. All teams have positions that are not strongly staffed. There is nothing unusual about that. It is better to manage your cap smartly than to squander cap space on players not worthy of the contract. In EJ's draft year the qb class was mediocre. There was no first round value that year. As I stated in the prior post the problem with EJ's selection was not that he was selected but when he was drafted. There were other teams that had qb needs that didn't use high picks on a qb because the market was paltry. Arizona and even Houston fall in that category.

Repeatedly drafting multiple qbs in itself could turn out to be self-defeating in that it is difficult to give practice time and playing time to such a large number of qbs. In addition, by investing so many draft picks on so many qb prospects you end up in not addressing other positional needs, thus weakining the roster. The Raiders have a recent inglorious history of not doing what most other teams do. How has that turned out? Sometimes trying to outthink everyone else you end up outthinking yourself. Tom Donahoe is a good example of someone who tried to prove to everyone else that he was smarter than everyone else in the business. Instead of stressing the fundamentals of good management he oftentimes outmaneuvered himself. The bottom line is the issue of evaluating players in general is the primary weakness with the Bills that go beyond the qb position. The Bills have had a history of not only poorly evaluating its qb selections but also its other selections. The flaws in EJ's games are the same flaws that most analysts recognized prior to the draft. The problem with selecting EJ was not in drafting him but over-drafting someone who was from the start a developmental prospect. If he would have been selected in the second or third round it would have made more sense.

The problem with the Bills drafting problems has little to do with drafting strategy. It centers on the issue of their adroitness in evaluating talent, regardless of position. Torrell Troup was an undersized NT with a history of back problems. He was simply overdrafted. When he was on the roster it turned out that he was an undersized NT who had back problems. Shocking! Don't you think we could have come away with a good offensive lineman at that juncture? Graham was a 'track" receiver who the Bills moved up (slightly) to pick. Again, in the third round a good guard prospect could have been available instead of the "track" receiver with little football instincts? Nix acted as if he was an appealing prospect that other teams were going to jump the pack to acquire. If your scouting proficiency is mediocre it doesn't matter what position you are assessing. The results follow the same pattern. I'm much more optimistic with Whaley at the helm than with Nix. Although I believe Whaley was most responsible for the EJ selection I still believe that the scouting department is better situated with him and his own hires.

How many teams were coveting Orton? Not many people are suggesting that Bradford is a guaranteed acquisition. The main point is that this offseason the Bills probably won't go after a qb in the draft, at least not with a high pick. Even with Orton on the roster the available veteran qbs on the market should at least be considered. Based on his prior performance, health history and exorbitant salary odds are that Bradford will be let go. Why not take a look and see if he is first healthy and then what if anything he has left. Orton didn't have many suitors last offseason. He wasn't on any roster until the season started. Yet he has been not only useful but also an upgrade at his position. If that situation can be replicated then why not try it?

Regardless what Vick's record was in Philly he learned how to play the position much better than he did with the Falcons, where he put little effort in his job. As you indicated Foles went 1-5 as a starter with Reid as a young qb but who drafted him? He did. As he gained experience and playing time he got better. Who drafted McNabb? He did. Alex Smith was very instrumental in KC's quick turnaround. Getting AS was one of his first acts as a HC. Are you going to deny that? My central point with Reid and the qb issue is that he has a history of adding qbs to his roster especially compared to franchises that are much more passive. Are you going to disagree with that description?

I agree wtih your assessment of the team that it has a variety of flaws. Very often people over assess teams because of their strengths. But as the Bills have demonstrated that when a team has significant vulnerabilities it will be constantly explointed by the opposition. Brady undressing Duke Williams was an example of that an our OL being regularly overwhelmed is another obvious example. My view of Orton is that he is average at best. But without even resorting to statistics the aesthetics of his game compared to EJ's game is dramatically different in a positive sense.

Andy Reid has a history of regularly drafting a qb somewhere in many of his drafts. With KC the first thing he did was acquire Alex Smith to stabilize that position and in this year's draft he selected an injured Aaron Murray from Georgia with a low round pick. With the Eagles he took Foles in the third round when he had McNaab. He also brought in Vick as a reclaimation project. He more than anyone else that I can think of is constantly looking not only to upgrade the position but to find prospects that he can develop. Andy Reid not only has an eye for qb talent but he knows how to develop them. The work he did with Vick was impressive.

I think you are establishing a too lofty standard in qbs for qb starved teams. I would gladly take a Foles or Ryan caliber qb. Although the Ravens and most teams didn't rate Flacco as an elite prospect (if I recall correctly they traded down and then back up to get Flacco at a lower first round spot) he was still a qb that you can compete at a high level with. When you have a good and not necessarily great qb you have to build your team with different areas of strength, such as defense, the OL and a good running game. The difference for the Cowboys this year is that they have an elite OL (three consecutive first round OL picks or 3 out of 4 draft years?) that has allowed Romo to tone down his wild act and establish an impressive running game. Not only does that help the offense but it helps the defense by keeping it off the field more. The point I'm stressing is that there are a variety of ways to build a roster that will enable you to be a serious team despite not having a dominant qb. Orton, who is at best is a below average starter, has demonstrated that if you get competent qbing you dramatically elevate the team compared to when it had bad qbing.

This organization certainly isn't known for its astuteness in evaluating players, both from the draft and in the pro ranks. In Nix's last year he had the scouting department place a lot of their emphasis on drafting a qb. After much effort they selected EJ in the first round, a player with physical tools and high character. Almost all the reports I read about him before the draft consistently stated that he was a developmental type prospect. Even as a person who defended the selection his flaws (accuracy and feel for the game) are so blatantly evident that I am leaning toward the column that indicates that he will never be a quality starter. The mistake that this organization frequently makes is that very often reach when they have a disperate need. The problem is that having a need doesn't alter the limitations of the particular player you acquired to fill the need. The Levy/Brandon/Nix eras wasted critical time that could have been used to smartly rebuild a decimated franchise. Instead a lot of time and effort is being used to undo what has already been done. It's exasperating. I'm aware that Whaley has an association with the Nix regime. Despite that taint I have more confidence in him and the staff that he has chosen than I have had in a very long time.

Odds are that AP is going to agree to some diversion program where he will attend some parenting classes. He has cooperated with the authorities and is not being stubborn on insisting that his behavior was acceptable. He has one of the top attorneys in the country who will guide him on doing the most intelligent thing for him, an area in which he needs a lot of guidance. I don't believe AP acted with any malice. His behavior was due to ignorance. Sometimes you act on what you know and not on what you should know. He is a product/victim of his own upbringing. That's a shame and that has to change.

New Orleans got Brees in the free agent market. Denver got Manning in the free agent market. KC got Alex Smith in a trade with the 49ers. Arizona got Palmer from the Raiders in a low scale trade. Although he is on his downside he helped stabilize that position. Wilson was a third round draft selection for the Seahawks. He has done fairly well in his short tenure in the league. Kaepernick was a second round draft choice for the 49ers who already had Alex Smith. Hoyer is far from being an elite qb but he is a competent qb who so far has helped a dismal team be competitive. Maybe he is simply a place holder until Johnny Football is ready but at least he is a reasonable short term answer. The point I am making with the above examples is that if you can't get a franchise qb with a high draft choice in the short term that doesn't mean that you can't find a credible qb who will stabilize the position and quite possibly play above expectations. How many people would have thought that Kurt Warner was going to play at a HOF level during his short stint of excellence with the Rams and Cardinals? Most people will agree that Orton is at best a pedestrian starter. Yet he has clearly put Watkins in a better position to exhibit his special talents than with the prior starter. Sometimes it is more fruitful to seek the best alternative option when the best option isn't available rather than sit on your hands and lament about your difficult plight. Watkins is the type of player who is going to be at the top or near the top of the draft in any year. If you have an opportunity to get such a dynamic player you do so and continue to upgrade wherever you can. Passing on that type of player because you are not in the best position to accommodate that unique talent is the type of thinking that Buddy Nix used as a GM. Being cautious isn't always being smart.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer/jason-la-canfora/24758759/jameis-winston-expected-to-enter-2015-nfl-draft-but-wont-drop-out-of-florida-state He's going to finish the season and then leave to prepare for the draft. The school has made it clear to him that whether he wanted to stay for another year or not he will be gone. The FSU administraton had the ability to sit him out until the various issues were clarified. They demonstrated what they stood for: $$$$. Winston has more than enough legal representation to drag the process out until the clock runs out. The school had the authority to do the right thing and it chose not to, regardless how much it damaged the reputation of the school. What a shock!!! What's the definition of tawdry? FSU.

Reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of the issue. What can't be disputed, however, is that Watkins is a dynamic player who has directly been instrumental in a couple of our wins. Without him the tenor of this season, at a very early stage, would be very different. One of the frequent arguments made by those who prefer not trading away next year's first pick for SW is that it could have been used for a qb. That is an assumption that isn't necessarily true. Is Whaley who no doubt was involved in the EJ pick going to give up on him so soon for another prospect? I don't believe so. If there is an elite prospect in next year's draft would the Bills who will probably draft from the middle of the pack and lower be in position to take an upper tier prospect? I have my doubts. When you hit big time on an impact player that should be a cause for celebration and relief. How many high draft picks has this quirky organization squandered? Whaley took a player he considered to be a dynamic player not only in this draft but in any draft year. As you have already noted as well as he has played just consider how even a better player he could be with high end quarterbacking? I'm more than pleased with the pick and the reasoning behind the pick. A little creativity and courage coming out of the front office of an organization known for its staidness is very refreshing and welcome.

My position on this issue is iron-clad! This topic gets my blood boiling.

You are giving an opinion on an officiated game that you watched on TV and then require others to accept your limited observations of that game as quantifiable data. What I witnessed is very different from what you witnessed. Anyone who has an ounce of objectivity who watched that game (fan of the home team or not) recognizes that the superior team and the better coached team won the game on its own merits. The quality of the officiating had nothing to do with the outcome. Are you aware that you are giving an opinion and not basing it on objective data? There are problems with officiating. I have consistently acknowledged that. However, it has nothing to do with the nonexistent bias that bothers you so much as it has to do with the league mandated "emphasis" on minimal impeding, especially with the focus on the defense. You can rally the troops to pressure the league for a problem that most people don't see as a problem if you want. When you turn around and find no one but a few of the fringe element behind you don't be surprised.

I have no doubt that the scouts you referenced were not told that EJ was a poor prospect. That doesn't mean that he was a first round value pick. The possibility that Fisher told scouts that he was a third round talent if true is not an insult or a declaration that he couldn't become a quality starter in the pro ranks. Many analysts felt that EJ was a developmental type qb who had good tools and was a high character guy. If Fisher stated that evaluation of Manuel then I have no problem with it because it is a fair assessment. Scouts listen to what coaches say to an extent. The majority of their evaluation comes from watching the tape. The Bills made a positive judgment on him based on what the tape indicated and from their own interviews of the prospect.

There is good officiating and bad officiating. No one is disputing that. What there isn't a scintilla of evidence is that there is a deliberate bias. If an owner made the explosive charge that there was biased officiating favoring a particular team it would come out in the public. These billionaire owners are not wallflowers. Goodell has the ability to fine them but that doesn't mean that these strong personalities would not challenge the commissioner on such an issue, regardless if they got fined or not. Of course there is a subjective aspect and a judgment aspect to officiating in all sports. That's simply part of sports in general. An official making a bad call or calls is a far cry from being biased. Maybe the Pats get better calls because they have better players and coaching. The Raiders had a history of being excessively penalized. The primary reason was that they were a very undisciplined team. It had nothing to do with bias. The game against the Pats did not demonstrate an officiating bias toward the Pats. The officiating had little to no bearing on that game. The Pats were simply demonstratively better than the Bills. You are correct that my mind is made up on this issue. When there is not a shred of evidence to the bias claim other than "it could be" then I am going to be dismissive of the claim. As WEO has challenged others on this topic what owner, GM or HC has claimed that a systemic bias of officiating exists in the NFL. Good-Bad-Erratic officiating are an unavoidable aspect of all sports. If you think there is bad officiating in the NFL then examine MLB where the umpires can't even consistently judge a strike zone let alone define what it is. That's exactly what my point is on this issue. There are officiating challenges that all teams have to endure. That's part of the fabric of the game that is unavoidable (for all teams). Don't kid yourself we all have our biases. You can look at the same data that another person does and come to different conclusions. Coming up with data is not the real challenge. Analyzing it properly and understanding the context and limitation of the data is where the challenge arises.

Every organization has either an official or unofficial analytical department within the football operation. If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises. No owner or GM or HC has even insinuated that there is a troubling issue that needs to be addressed. What the conspiracy mongers are doing here is making an outlandish claim based on their imagination and then challenging others to prove that they are wrong. What they can't do is offer a scintilla of evidence that their proposition has a penny's worth of credibility. Winners win and shameless losers desperately search for excuses. How pathetic can you get?

I categorically disregard your above argument. The problem with your premise that empirical evidence either proves or disproves a proposition fails to acknowledge that if the premise is off base then the evidence on either side of the issue lacks relevancy. You can use all the stats you want to validate a ludicrous claim but that isn't going to alter the fact that the premise has no basis to begin with. What are you actually proving with your so called stat based response? I stand by my position that the intense search for biases favoring the Pats at the expense of other teams is a pathetic reach for excuses explaining why they win and why (mostly Bills) lose. It is a sad commentary on those investing significant effort trying to explain away the obvious: This particular franchise is better in all aspects of its organization than most other organizations. If the claim that there was a demonstrable bias was evident then why aren't the other owners making the claim? Why aren't the other GMs or HCs making that claim? If you really believe that a bias does exist and that you have the proof based on stats then so be it. I consider this issue to be as ludicrous as the issue that the Pats win because they cheat.

Don't get me wrong I'm not anoiting him as a special player. He's no Welker who as an underneath route runner is elite. What is making CH effective is not his outstanding qualities but the change in qbs. It is Orton who is able to read the plays and make an accurate pass. EJ was simply (not at this point) capable of staying in the pocket and allowing the play to develop and then decisively make the right throw. Orton as a starter by an NFL standard is a pedestrian qb. He is one of the most immobile qbs I have ever seen. He runs like a stork and is as elusive as a cement block. But he is a heady qb who knows how to play and he is relatively accurate. If he had an OL that could block better than a collection of grandmas he would be even more effective. Watching Orton play I give him a lot of credit for his poise. Even when he gets sacked or throws an interception or someone fumbles he doesn't allow it to affect him. You don't see him on the sidelines fretting or hanging his head. Without a doubt adding him to the roster (even belatedly) salvaged this season. Without him the level of frustration from the team and fanbase would have been out of control.