Kyle Orton vs EJ Manuel

[earthtobrint]

wait so are the Bills still cheap?

 

If they don't pay it he goes elsewhere and we have no backup plan. If they do it's too much. Who cares what he makes that is not starting QB money it is solid vet backup money which is what he is.

 

See my other post. I'm fine with them paying Orton $5 million but it's happening right now two weeks before the season starts because they have no alternative whereas there have been better alternatives for the same price range as recent as the start of this offseason. Instead they've been relying completely (or hoping) on EJ not being as bad as he has been thusfar.

Edited August 31, 2014 by earthtobrint

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

See my other post. I'm fine with them paying Orton $5 million but it's happening right now two weeks before the season starts because they have no alternative whereas there have been better alternatives for the same price range as recent as the start of this offseason. Instead they've been relying completely (or hoping) on EJ not being as bad as he has been thusfar.

i think they felt comfortable with Thad until OTAs. That was when they started talking to orton. If mccown is who you are speaking of, he signed in TB to be a starter. Would not have been the case here. I don't know who else was a better backup than orton but they didn't know they would be in the market back in FA.

[Kelly the Dog]

Part of my point was McCown was available for the same price we're now paying a guy to come out of retirement after the preseason is already over. Would you prefer Orton or McCown? McCown likely wanted to be a starter but all you had to do is tell him it's an open competition at QB. It'd either push EJ or McCown would win the job. Instead, they give EJ a ten mile leash by telling him before the offseason even starts that he's the definitely the starter, and having incompetent backup QBs to compete with. I'm not saying McCown is some savior but he's one of many examples of better options at QB the Bills chose not to invest in.

They're pretty much the same. Orton has been slightly better over his career. McCown was good last year. They are both backups to me, but good backups. I wouldn't want either as my starter really.

[The Dean]

Is this real?

 

Wow.

 

There's quantitative and qualitative reasons for a players performance. I don't throw stats out but it's my nature to question them. For example, a QB can have a high QBR if he completes 28 passes at 80% but who cares if he had less than 200 yds and the team lost...stats made Trent Edwards look like a viable option at QB. Stats didnt show Trent checking down or running out of bounds on a fourth down with the game on the line. Stats made prospects like Gabbert look like viable options. Stats are good but they shouldn't be relied on to heavily. This isn't baseball.

 

Yes, it's real, I wasn't sure you even had the wherewithal to address the issue. You surprised me by attempting. Good job. So I feel your attempt deserves a response.

 

Stats, in a vacuum, typically don't tell the entire story. Combine with performance, however, they can be illuminating. Using just state to evaluate is stupid, but so is disregarding them entirely, IMO,.

 

Completion % (far more than passing yardage) is an indication of the ability to sustain drives. Guys that can't manage to complete a reasonable percentage of their attempts are typically the victims of many 3-and-outs. That puts a ton of pressure on the defense. If Orton played his career with one team, who lived by the long pass, then I might be inclined to cut him a bit of slack, percentage-wise. That simply hasn't been the case with Orton. He does not have a particularly strong arm and has never been called

The Mad Bomber" or anything like it. He is, at his best, a game manager. That simply isn't what you want in a game manager.

 

Now, it would be irresponsible to note Orton has spent much of his time as a backup. That can have a negative impact on stats, particularly things like completion percentage. But he has been a starter in most every game in which he has played and his percentage remains well below 60%---as low as 51.6 in one year (his first) when he started 15 games, and once in his career he actually managed to top 60% with a 62.1% with 15 starts. Unfortunately that was in 2009. He has thrown more TDs than INTs (83-59) in his career---not too bad. Unfortunately that ratio has been declining since 2009.

 

The stats, and his play, suggest his skills are declining. So we have a guy who has rarely been able to complete passes at a high enough percentage to be a considered a great game manager---who seems to be in decline. But I will admit, the last few years he has been at a disadvantage, playing few games as a backup.

 

So what we have here, IMO of course, is the dictionary picture of "Backup Quarterback:. Plenty of experience, but never good enough to hold the starting job for long. On the other hand we have an athletic 2nd year, 1st round pick (with only 10 games of NFL experience) and a strong arm. Since we know what Orton can bring to the table---which is average, but proven to be not quite good enough for an NFL team, why not let our 1st round pick play a bit and attempt to show what he actually can do with some talent around him?

 

Part of my point was McCown was available for the same price we're now paying a guy to come out of retirement after the preseason is already over. Would you prefer Orton or McCown? McCown likely wanted to be a starter but all you had to do is tell him it's an open competition at QB. It'd either push EJ or McCown would win the job. Instead, they give EJ a ten mile leash by telling him before the offseason even starts that he's the definitely the starter, and having incompetent backup QBs to compete with. I'm not saying McCown is some savior but he's one of many examples of better options at QB the Bills chose not to invest in.

 

What makes you think McCown wasn't approached? And if he had the choice between TB (with a new HC not tied to Glennon) and a HC and GM committed to their #1 pick from a year ago, what team do you think he would have picked? Remember we now know Whaley has been trying to sign Orton for months. Who else might have he tried to sign?

Edited August 31, 2014 by The Dean

[The_Dude]

 

 

Yes, it's real, I wasn't sure you even had the wherewithal to address the issue. You surprised me by attempting. Good job.

 

K... So I don't normally do this...I don't mind typos, I'm not a 'there, their, they're' nazi... But I'm actually a pretty educated guy (who cares right?) and it's just my pet peeve when somebody tries to talk with an manner of superiority. I see you do this regularly. The problem is though (and by the way it's clear you're a smart guy) that youre using words you think you know. For example, to question my "wherewithal" is to question my finances...my ability to pay for something...not my ability or knowledge to answer a question like you clearly mistook it for.

 

Bro, talking down to people on the google machine just ain't cool now is it? Tell ya what, I'm more than happy to talk football but if you're going to talk to me like I'm an uneducated plebeian I'm gonna call you out when you use words you don't know.

Edited August 31, 2014 by The_Dude

[The Dean]

K... So I don't normally do this...I don't mind typos, I'm not a 'there, their, they're' nazi... But I'm actually a pretty educated guy (who cares right?) and it's just my pet peeve when somebody tries to talk with an manner of superiority. I see you do this regularly. The problem is though (and by the way it's clear you're a smart guy) that youre using words you think you know. For example, to question my "wherewithal" is to question my finances...my ability to pay for something...not my ability or knowledge to answer a question like you clearly mistook it for.

 

Bro, talking down to people on the google machine just ain't cool now is it? Tell ya what, I'm more than happy to talk football but if you're going to talk to me like I'm an uneducated plebeian I'm gonna call you out when you use words you don't know.

 

Got me on wherewithal apparently. Been using it wrong for years. Good catch. Learn something new every day

 

You've managed to demonstrate you understand English. You still haven't really shared anything that suggests you know football.

 

Not back to the football discussion. Surely my misuse of one word can't be your entire rebuttal,. Discuss, refute, agree with the facts and conclusions. That's typically how intelligent disagreements are settled, no?

[The_Dude]

 

 

Got me on wherewithal apparently. Been using it wrong for years. Good catch. Learn something new every day

 

You've managed to demonstrate you understand English. You still haven't really shared anything that suggests you know football.

 

Not back to the football discussion. Surely my misuse of one word can't be your entire rebuttal,. Discuss, refute, agree with the facts and conclusions. That's typically how intelligent disagreements are settled, no?

 

2009, Trent Edwards had a comp % of over 60. Fitz had a comp % of 55. So who was the better QB that year? Stats suggest Edwards was yet when you watched them it looked to me like Fitz was better. But stats said otherwise. However, if you looked at Lees and TOs stats their production doubled in the games that Fitz played. So my proof that Fitz was better was backed in the stays of Lee and TO. Watch first and look at stats. Stats should confirm what you see. If not analyze why.

[Kelly the Dog]

K... So I don't normally do this...I don't mind typos, I'm not a 'there, their, they're' nazi... But I'm actually a pretty educated guy (who cares right?) and it's just my pet peeve when somebody tries to talk with an manner of superiority. I see you do this regularly. The problem is though (and by the way it's clear you're a smart guy) that youre using words you think you know. For example, to question my "wherewithal" is to question my finances...my ability to pay for something...not my ability or knowledge to answer a question like you clearly mistook it for.

 

Bro, talking down to people on the google machine just ain't cool now is it? Tell ya what, I'm more than happy to talk football but if you're going to talk to me like I'm an uneducated plebeian I'm gonna call you out when you use words you don't know.

He used "wherewithal" correctly, sorry about that. While it originally may have been about money, it's not only about money, it's "the money, skill, etc., that is needed to get or do something." He was saying, right or wrong, that you don't have the wherewithal - the smarts, the skill, the ability, the ____ - to do something, in this case, address the issue.

[The Dean]

2009, Trent Edwards had a comp % of over 60. Fitz had a comp % of 55. So who was the better QB that year? Stats suggest Edwards was yet when you watched them it looked to me like Fitz was better. But stats said otherwise. However, if you looked at Lees and TOs stats their production doubled in the games that Fitz played. So my proof that Fitz was better was backed in the stays of Lee and TO. Watch first and look at stats. Stats should confirm what you see. If not analyze why.

 

Really? That's your rebuttal. OK then. I guess you don't really have the mental wherewithal (that better?) to be of much use to me on the forum.

[The_Dude]

 

He used "wherewithal" correctly, sorry about that. While it originally may have been about money, it's not only about money, it's "the money, skill, etc., that is needed to get or do something." He was saying, right or wrong, that you don't have the wherewithal - the smarts, the skill, the ability, the ____ - to do something, in this case, address the issue.

 

I disagree on the grounds that it's a noun used for acquisition. But back to football...

 

 

 

Really? That's your rebuttal. OK then. I guess you don't really have the mental wherewithal (that better?) to be of much use to me on the forum.

 

Yeah, that's my rebuttal and an illustrative one on how stats can be deceiving.

 

I don't need Mannings stats to know he's good.

[The Dean]

I disagree on the grounds that it's a noun used for acquisition. But back to football...

 

 

 

Yeah, that's my rebuttal and an illustrative one on how stats can be deceiving.

 

I don't need Mannings stats to know he's good.

 

I'll take it as a misstep. An accepted colloquial perhaps, but a misstep none the less. I believe "mental wherewithal" makes the intention abundantly clear--mental currency.

 

Now that I have accepted your language rebuttal, please do better in your football rebuttal.

[Bubba Gump]

All I know is if the Bills continue to stink it up out there, Dr. Seuss is gonna write a new book named Orton Hears a Boo.

[The Dean]

All I know is if the Bills continue to stink it up out there, Dr. Seuss is gonna write a new book named Orton Hears a Boo.

 

[The_Dude]

 

 

I'll take it as a misstep. An accepted colloquial perhaps, but a misstep none the less. I believe "mental wherewithal" makes the intention abundantly clear--mental currency.

 

Now that I have accepted your language rebuttal, please do better in your football rebuttal.

 

My rebuttals fine. Total yards didn't separate the two QBs drastically but one doubled the production of the X and the Z. Stats aren't indicative of quality QB play.

[Kelly the Dog]

I disagree on the grounds that it's a noun used for acquisition. But back to football...

 

It's a conjunction. The Dictionary's second example of its use is the exact way he used it: "He doesn't have the wherewithal to finish what he started."

 

http://www.merriam-w...ary/wherewithal

 

EDIT: Some dictionaries will call it a noun. And again, its original use was about money. It's often used in monetary terms. But it's used all over, I see it all the time, used to describe skill or ability or aptitude...

Edited August 31, 2014 by Kelly the Dog

[The_Dude]

 

It's a conjunction. The Dictionary's second example of its use is the exact way he used it: "He doesn't have the wherewithal to finish what he started."

 

http://www.merriam-w...ary/wherewithal

 

EDIT: Some dictionaries will call it a noun. And again, its original use was about money. It's often used in monetary terms. But it's used all over, I see it all the time, used to describe skill or ability or aptitude...

 

I've not seen it used to describe skill or ability...but then again I probably hear that word used 3 times a year...if that.

[PastaJoe]

The Bills didn't want anyone on the roster in preseason who could play better than EJ, knowing that if they did the fans would be calling for him to start over EJ. This way they can say EJ is the best QB who knows the play book. It's always been about justifying picking him in the first round and not giving him real competition.

[Kelly the Dog]

I've not seen it used to describe skill or ability...but then again I probably hear that word used 3 times a year...if that.

That's cool. Another dictionary definition of the word is "The ability and means required to accomplish some task." You can see why money fits into that well, but also smarts and other resources does, too.

 

As far as stats go, I agree with you, and you make a good argument. Stats do not always back up what you see though. A lot of times they don't. The eye test (if you know the game of course, ha) is essential, context of the stats is essential. Stats are a tool.

Edited August 31, 2014 by Kelly the Dog

[The Dean]

My rebuttals fine. Total yards didn't separate the two QBs drastically but one doubled the production of the X and the Z. Stats aren't indicative of quality QB play.

 

No, it isn't. You compared two QBs whose completion % wasn't all that different. One had talent, but played scared. The other played with courage, but had limited talent.

 

Neither guy was a mad bomber, though Fitz took more chances. In the one year But even then the stats support my point.

 

Trent actually completed a reasonable percentage of his passes (2008, where he completed 65.5% of his passes and started most of the games) the Bills were actually 7-7 in those starts accounting for all the Bills wins that year. The next year, when both QBs were under 60% passing, the team went 6-10,. The following season (2010), both QBs completion percentage dipped again, this time Fitz was two points higher than Trent, but all miserable (57.8 to 55.8) the Bills won 4 games. Fitz's complettion percentage increased to 62% in 2011 and the team won 6 games, 2 more than when both QBs completed less than 58% of their passes.

 

 

Try again.

[dave mcbride]

 

 

Is this real?

 

Wow.

 

There's quantitative and qualitative reasons for a players performance. I don't throw stats out but it's my nature to question them. For example, a QB can have a high QBR if he completes 28 passes at 80% but who cares if he had less than 200 yds and the team lost...stats made Trent Edwards look like a viable option at QB. Stats didnt show Trent checking down or running out of bounds on a fourth down with the game on the line. Stats made prospects like Gabbert look like viable options. Stats are good but they shouldn't be relied on to heavily. This isn't baseball.

Trent Edwards didn't run out of bounds on 4th down with the game on the line. He did that when they were losing 34-7 to the Packers and it was in the last minute in the game. It wasn't admirable, but it was hardly a game-deciding play.