Orton's Arm

Tampa Bob: > You spelled loses wrong Not according to dictionary.com. Singular = loss. Plural = losses. Enlightener: > thanks for stealing my joke. i know you saw this in the other thread about ej...admit it please. I didn't read the other thread. No way I could get through three pages of that without ripping out my hair. If you and I thought of the same joke, it's a sign great minds think alike.

If the Bills lose this week to the Dolphins, is it too soon to start talking about inserting Alex van Pelt into the starting lineup? Van Pelt has 11 career starts. He's still essentially a rookie. Van Pelt last got meaningful time as a starter back in 2001. He was plagued by accuracy issues. But he's had eight years on the bench since then. Eight years to develop. Eight years to become a far more accurate passer than he'd been in college or in the early years of his NFL career. How many more games do the Bills need to lose before it's time to put van Pelt back out there?

Great thread! Anyone who hasn't yet taken the time to look at the numbers Bangarang posted should do so. It won't take long. If the level of player talent had declined, the decline in offensive production could be blamed on that. Bearing that in mind, let's look at the talent each coach was given: Quarterback: Orton is better than Fitzpatrick. But Fitzpatrick is better than Manuel, Lewis, or Tuel. Marrone and Hackett get a mulligan for their first year, but much less so for year two. RB: Very similar. Fred Jackson is older than he was with Gailey, but still plays well when healthy. Bryce Brown and Boobie Dixon help offset Jackson's aging. Offensive line: The offensive linemen we have now are fairly similar to those we had with Gailey. TE: See offensive line. WRs: Under Gailey, the Bills' #1 WR was Stevie Johnson, with no clear-cut #2. Johnson was traded away for a 4th round pick, IIRC. Now, we have Sammy Watkins, Robert Woods, and plenty of good specialist type WRs. Hogan for underneath stuff, Goodwin as a deep burner, etc. There is no comparison between this year's WR corps and any that Gailey had. Overall: When you hire an uncreative, unimaginative head coach and offensive coordinator, you should expect uninspiring results. That's precisely what the Bills have received from Marrone and Hackett. A guy like Chip Kelly would be having a field day with talent like this!

> In every stat I can find, he is marginally better. I can help solve that problem. > completion percentage The problem with completion percentage is that it can easily be inflated by dumping the ball off short. Trent Edwards has a career completion percentage of over 60%. > KO is a few percentage points above EJ. Orton is much better than Manuel, at least as measured by air yards per attempt. Over 80% of Manuel's passes have been to targets less than 10 yards away. Not 10 yards away from the line of scrimmage. 10 yards away from EJ personally. And it's not like he was throwing to guys running horizontal crossing routes or anything. The overwhelming majority of those passes were to stationary targets. If you get a random group of guys together and start throwing the football around, and if the guys are reasonably decent at throwing, it will soon be discovered that throwing 10 yard passes to stationary targets is boring. Too easy. But that's the only thing Manuel has been doing, except for a few throws here and there. Those few throws here and there are inaccurate far more often than not. Orton attempts a far higher percentage of difficult throws than Manuel attempts. Orton isn't accurate 100% of the time. But his accuracy is worlds ahead of Manuel's. For the 2014 season, Manuel's air yards per attempt was 2.13. That was the worst average of any starting quarterback. The second-worst was Geno Smith, at 2.63. Even after his uninspiring showing against the Chiefs and their #1 pass defense, Orton's air yards per attempt is still 3.63--much better than Manuel's 2.13. Why do many of Manuel's other stats look somewhat comparable to Orton's? Most statistical measures of a quarterback's performance lump air yards together with yards after the catch (YAC). This benefits Manuel the most. Two thirds of Manuel's total passing yardage came from YAC. That's a higher percentage than any other starting quarterback in 2014. It's not like Manuel was doing a spectacular job of hitting guys in perfect stride; setting them up for excellent YAC. No. He was making easy, boring throws to stationary targets less than 10 yards away, then watching as guys like Watkins or Fred Jackson generated YAC on their own. As a pure passer, EJ Manuel was the least productive starting quarterback in the NFL. And it wasn't even close. He had some positive attributes which helped offset that. He didn't turn the ball over a lot or take many sacks. That's one of the benefits to almost always going with your dump-off option. Nevertheless, Manuel has a long way to go before he can be considered a credible backup quarterback. He has not attained, and probably never will attain, the level of Trent Edwards or JP Losman--neither of whom are on NFL rosters.

Regardless of why he wants Marrone fired, he's right. The Bills' offense is unimaginative. Players aren't being put in the best position to succeed. The Bills aren't adapting to opponents' strengths and weaknesses. Take the last two games for example. Against the Jets, the Bills were averaging seven times as many yards per pass play as they did on running plays. Hackett therefore dialed up twice as many running plays as pass plays! On the other hand, the Chiefs have the league's best pass defense, but a suspect running defense. The Bills' running game was working against the Chiefs. Hackett called up twice as many pass plays as running plays. Hackett's tendency to gravitate toward the stuff that doesn't work is inexplicable. Given that Marrone comes from an offensive background himself, the weakness of the offensive coaching is on him.

How would you explain that to the players? These guys make enormous physical sacrifices. They play through pain. Watkins' playing through broken ribs is a good example of that. They're told the reason for all this sacrifice is because winning matters above all else. Suppose that a few weeks from now, Marrone walks into the locker room and announces that Manuel is now the starter. The receivers will know--at least intuitively--that Manuel is much less likely to throw them the ball downfield. They'll realize that except on very rare occasions, they'll be getting the ball on dump-offs only. Or, if the ball is thrown downfield, there's an excellent chance it will be a widow maker type pass. This implies that the coaches would be requiring an even greater level of sacrifice from our WRs, while at the same time deliberately reducing the team's chance of winning. The effect this would have on morale would be less than stellar, especially among the Bills' WR corps. Maybe you care about morale in the locker room, and maybe you don't. But a number of excellent Bills' players are nearing the ends of their contracts. Players like Hughes. The more head-scratching moves the front office or coaching staff make, the harder it becomes to retain players like that.

> EJ is almost as good as Orton right now. This is not true. In 2014, Manuel averaged 2.13 air yards per attempt. Orton's average for the year is 4.51--over double Manuel's. During his four starts, Manuel threw a lot of short, very easy passes. Some of which resulted in great yards after the catch (YAC). In 2014, 2/3 of Manuel's total passing yardage came from YAC; with the other third from air yards. Conversely, over 60% of Orton's total passing yardage has been from air yards. With Orton, the Bills have a real QB. Not a top-10 QB, perhaps, but still a credible starter. "Credible starter" is not a phrase I'd use to describe E.J. Manuel, either now or in the future. > After playing only a handful of games. EJ's the kind of guy that the more reps he gets, the better he gets. If that's the case, why was he no better in the first four games of this season than he was last season?

> The bigger questions might be...when the O line is doing well, and the run game is working so well to > the tune of averaging 5.0 yards per carry why run only 22 times, and pass 48 times? An excellent question. Against the Jets, the Bills' offense averaged 2.0 yards per carry, and 14 yards per pass attempt. Hackett, being the genius that he is, chose to run it two plays for every one passing play. This time around he went up against a team with a great pass defense but a lousy run defense. The Bills' best WR was playing hurt. So why not call two pass plays for every running play? On another matter, it's possible that Watkins' injury interfered with the timing between himself and Orton. Both because of running differently due to the injury itself, and because of the missed practices.

> The book is written on Orton, its still yet to be written on EJ. The first few chapters of EJ's book have been written. He lacks throwing accuracy (a poor man's Fitzpatrick), almost always looks for the check-down (Trent Edwards), can't process information quickly (Losman), and lacks pocket awareness (a hint of Rob Johnson). You could say, give him time to develop, maybe he'll improve. Except that he didn't display strength in any of those areas back in college. The idea that he'll drastically improve is based on a triumph of hope over disciplined thinking.

Are you suggesting that Orton started out accurate, but became progressively less accurate as the game progressed and his arm tired?

If EJ isn't throwing the ball accurately in practice--and by all accounts he hasn't been, at last as of a few weeks ago--what do you hope to discover by playing him in games? It's not as though he's going to start lighting things up when it matters if he can't get it done in practice. On the other hand, maybe you'd like to see him out there in hopes of accelerating his development. My counterexample to that is Carson Palmer. When Palmer was a rookie, Marvin Lewis decided to make him the third string quarterback. Jon Kitna--a reasonably good veteran QB--was the starter. At the beginning of his rookie year, Palmer made lots of inaccurate throws in practice. As the year progressed, he became steadily better. By the end of his rookie year, he was starting to show serious signs of being better than Kitna. EJ Manuel has been given every opportunity Palmer had as a rookie. In addition, he's also been given the opportunities that come with being the starter for training camp and the offseason--for two years running. The Bills gain nothing by showering him with yet more snaps not earned by his college play or NFL play.

Fixed. There is nothing more the Bills need to learn about EJ Manuel.

I don't know (or care) what Orton or his agent will cite. I do care about the quality of his performance. Air yards per attempt is one way of measuring that. Given the quality of the Bills' receiving corps, it's easy for yards per attempt to get inflated with a lot of YAC yards. Last I checked, Orton's yards per attempt for the season is hovering around 8.0. That's higher than the career average of either Manning or Brady. I don't think that anyone is arguing that Orton is playing above the level you'd usually expect from Manning or Brady. But yards per attempt makes it look that way, because guys like Watkins are very good at generating yards after the catch. Thus far this season, Orton has the 10th best air yards per attempt stat. That means that the strong performance indicated by his yards per attempt stat isn't just a mirage, created by his receivers' excellent ability to generate YAC. It means the guy has legitimately been producing yards through the air.

Fitz was never particularly accurate when throwing the ball. When Fitz appeared to be playing "well," it was because Gailey had devised an offense to mask his lack of accuracy. Gailey's offense relied on Fitz to make very good reads both pre- and post-snap--something at which Fitz was good. The throws themselves were generally fairly easy. The Bengals were the first team to catch up with Gailey's offense. (That happened before Fitz signed his monster extension.) They demonstrated the correct way to beat Fitz. The Bills must have seen that game as an exception to the norm. (Or else they wouldn't have given him that big contract extension.) After Fitz signed that big extension, other teams followed the Bengals' example. That was no different than when teams learned that the correct way to defend Losman is to double cover Lee Evans, and put eight in the box to take away the run. Or when they learned the solution to Drew Bledsoe was pressure up the middle. The fact teams figured out a solution to Fitz doesn't mean he stopped trying hard. It means that Fitz was never going to be a great quarterback, no matter how hard he tried. He just didn't have the ability to play well after defenses figured him out. In contrast to the above, I don't see anything particularly brilliant or gimmicky that Hackett is doing to make Orton look better than he really is. Orton is reading the field well, making good decisions, and throwing the ball accurately. Granted, he's not elite in any of those areas. But he's a significant upgrade over what we're used to, and is a better quarterback than Fitz.

> his performance is about on par with what he is making. I disagree. This season, Orton is producing the NFL's 10th-best air yards per attempt. His pay is not consistent with a performance like that. > Ortons body of work is mediocre at best Over the last five years, there was only one time when Orton averaged less than 7 yards per attempt. (The Denver half of his 2011 season.) Fitz's usual average with the Bills was 6.8 yards per attempt. Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt; Tom Brady's is 7.5. > Even with 4TDs, we had NINE 3 and outs. Hackett deserves most of the blame for that. He called run, run, pass about 2/3 of the time he had an opportunity to do so. On a day when the running game was averaging 2 yards a carry--and the passing attack was averaging 14 yards per attempt--run, run, pass is the sort of play calling you'd expect from someone perfectly content to go three and out. > Until Orton proves it on the field and gets us to the playoffs we will still need to find a QB of the future. There is nothing which would even remotely suggest Whaley is good at evaluating QB talent. For better or worse, Kyle Orton is almost certainly the very best quarterback Whaley will acquire for a very long time. The Bills' two choices are to either build around Orton, or replace Whaley with a GM capable of choosing better quarterbacks than Kolb or Manuel.

> If you actually look at the full range of stats Glennon has slightly outperformed EJ in their NFL careers to date This season, well over 80% of Manuel's passes have been to targets less than 10 yards away. I'm not talking 10 yards away from the line of scrimmage. I'm talking 10 yards away from himself personally. Nor is it like these were passes on crossing routes, to targets moving horizontally. No. These were passes to stationary targets. If we're talking passes to stationary targets, less than ten yards away, we're talking passes I could have thrown. Easy passes, at least for me. (And for plenty of others here on this board.) Boring passes. Sometimes, guys like Sammy Watkins or Fred Jackson would generate really great yards after the catch (YAC) yards after receiving a dump-off pass from Manuel. Most statistical measures of a quarterback's performance lump air yards together with YAC yards. Measures like that are a great benefit to Manuel, because 67% of his total passing yards came from YAC yards. That's the highest percentage of any starting QB in 2014. In contrast, only 32% of Glennon's total passing yards came from YAC yards. When air yards and YAC yards are lumped together, Glennon and Manuel look fairly similar. But when the two quarterbacks are given credit for their air yards only, Glennon absolutely destroys Manuel. QBR is another stat which draws a distinction between air yards and YAC yards. Glennon's QBR for the season is 55.9, Manuel's is 19.8. Manuel has a long, long way to go before he even approaches Glennon's performance as a quarterback. Manuel is currently well below what we saw from Losman or Edwards. Neither of whom could hold onto roster spots as backups. > Now you might not like that because it focuses somewhat on measurables and on the personality, but all the guys had issues with accuracy The best way to do an exercise like this is to start with the guys who became something special. Of the QBs active in the NFL today, which ones have had the best careers? I'd list Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, and Ben Roethlisberger. For the most part, those guys don't have exceptional physical tools, except for Roethlisberger's sheer size and strength. They became special because of their exceptional accuracy and ability to process information quickly. I've read that Drew Bledsoe needed over three seconds to see what Tom Brady could see in less than two. That difference in information processing ability is perhaps the single most important reason why Brady is one of the best quarterbacks ever, and Bledsoe is not. Generally speaking, special quarterbacks are accurate and able to process information quickly. If you don't see special accuracy or information processing ability in any QB from the 2013 draft class, there's no reason to believe that any of them could become something special. In which case, the correct solution is to not draft anyone from that weak QB class, and wait until next year. > But we had backed ourselves into a corner with our previous strategy. True. But burning a first round pick on a standard-issue first round bust type QB isn't the right answer. (Any more than sinking $20,000 into a Ponzi scheme is the right way to make up for previous financial mistakes.) As Manuel's supporters keep telling us, the original plan had been for the project (read: bust) QB to sit and learn for at least a year, with Kolb as the starter. If starting Kolb was their planned short-term solution, they didn't need Manuel for that.

> Chip Kelly is a beast. You speak the truth. I really wanted him as the Bills' head coach, and was very disappointed when we chose Marrone instead. If Foles can't succeed with Kelly as his coach, he's very unlikely to succeed under Hackett's tutelage. However, Manuel's supporters should not take heart from that. Manuel cannot throw the ball accurately or read the field well. As brilliant a coach as Kelly is, he isn't an alchemist. He's not going to take a quarterback with weaknesses like those and make him look like Joe Montana.

> his plantar fascitus or whatever the invisible, undetectable, convenient injury is called Personally, I think it was a case of bumblefoot. From Wikipedia: *********** Bumblefoot (ulcerative pododermatitis) is a bacterial infection and inflammatory reaction on the feet of birds and rodents. *********** > The threat of another plantar flareup was enough to keep the Bills from tagging him. The Bills should have tagged him, and then immediately traded him to the Saints, or to whichever other team was most willing to part with draft picks. Any draft pick would have been better than no draft pick. Of course, he could have refused to sign the offer, in which case he would have sat out the year. The Bills would have been no worse off in that scenario than they would have been had they let him fly the coop.

> If you think [Glennon] makes a better pro, everyone is right to their opinion. What aspects of Manuel's game do you like more than Glennon's? Do you think Manuel is more accurate than Glennon? Better at reading the field? If you think Manuel is more accurate than Glennon, or better at reading defenses, or whatever, then what is your explanation for the fact that Manuel's production (as measured by air yards per attempt) is less than half that of Glennon's? Do you think that Tampa Bay's receiving corps is better than Watkins/Woods/Williams? > Glennon stinks. He can throw a great looking ball once in awhile, that's it. Even assuming that's true, how does that make him worse than EJ? > Manuel was a 1-2. Garoppolo 2. What's important isn't just the ranking. It's the text description of the quarterbacks. Garappolo's description praised his throwing accuracy, as well as his "excellent passing vision with quick eyes." Accuracy and information processing ability are the two most important traits to look for when evaluating a QB. Garoppolo displayed both in college, Manuel displayed neither. Garoppolo was by far the better prospect. Which is why he was drafted by a well-run organization; whereas Manuel was taken by a poorly run team with little ability to evaluate quarterback talent.

> If they waited until 8 in the second round he would have been gone. Fine with me. Let some other team squander an early pick on a standard-issue quarterback bust. > there is no one who looks like they will be better even if he doesn't pan out This season, Manuel averaged 2.13 air yards per attempt. Glennon is averaging is more than double that, at 4.77. There's no reason to describe Manuel as being at least as good as Glennon, when he isn't coming remotely close to matching Glennon's production. > It was a great frigging trade and use of the 8th pick. Kiko is a superb football player. Is he 8th overall good? Possibly. But it's way too early to tell.

> That was the #8 pick. That's a fact. EJ and Kiko for the #8 pick. You and I see this differently. I see EJ Manuel as the 16th overall pick, and Kiko Alonzo as the 46th overall pick. The fact that it made a ton of sense to take Kiko 46th overall has nothing at all to do with whether Manuel was deserving of that 16th overall pick. The other way to look at it is that Alonzo was so good as to himself justify the 8th overall pick. And that, because of Kiko's success, anything at all Manuel might do with his career should be regarded as a bonus. The thing is, I don't want a general manager who thinks that way. I don't want him to say to himself, "I'm really confident in the linebacker I'm eyeing. So confident that I can afford to throw away my first round pick on a quarterback with great physical tools and little else." I'm assuming that Whaley/Nix didn't embrace the above-described thought process. I'm assuming that they did their very best to evaluate Manuel, and concluded he was worth a first round draft pick. If that's the best evaluation they could provide, then that to me strongly suggests they cannot be trusted to evaluate quarterback talent. Manuel fit the profile of a standard-issue first round bust. Great physical tools, but did nothing to suggest he was particularly accurate or good at quickly processing information on a college football field. To make matters worse, Whaley is still "high on EJ." It's not like he's learned from his past mistake, and can be trusted to do a better job in the future. The fact he is continuing to delude himself about Manuel may impact whether the Bills hold onto Orton. Pegula needs to decide whether Whaley is the right GM for the Bills. Everything I've seen thus far indicates Whaley is not the right man to pick the Bills' quarterback. Nor offensive linemen, for that matter. However, there are other positions he does seem good at evaluating, such as linebacker and wide receiver. I give him credit for that, but it's not enough.

I agree that it makes the most sense to wait until after the season before addressing his contract. Assuming his next eight games for the Bills are like his first four, it would then make sense to address his contract. And to address it very seriously. The Bills should enter those contract negotiations fully prepared to give him the kind of contract a top-15 quarterback would expect. A four to six year deal.

> they liked Marrone because he fit every one of their criterion From reading your description, Doug Whaley sounds like a good guy. I like the fact he was open and candid, unpretentious, and that he took time out of his busy schedule to visit with the LA Bills Backers. I imagine that if I got to know Doug, I'd come away with a positive opinion of him as a human being. However, there are two things you've written which reinforced my concerns about his ability to be a good general manager. The first is his endorsement of Marrone. A head coach should be very creative and innovative. Bill Belichick and Bill Walsh were two of the best head coaches ever, in large part because they were smarter and more creative than their peers. What you've written leads me to believe that Whaley didn't mention that he was looking for an exceptional level of intelligence or creativity on the part of his next head coaching hire. Marrone/Hackett certainly didn't display those traits during their time together at Syracuse. Marrone may have fit all the criteria they were looking for, but didn't fit all the criteria for which they should have been looking! An equally serious concern is the fact Whaley is still high on E.J. Manuel. The two most important factors he should be looking at in a quarterback are throwing accuracy and rapid information processing ability. Manuel displayed neither trait in college. He hasn't displayed those traits in the NFL. Just because a guy has good physical tools and interviews well, doesn't mean you should make him your quarterback of the future! On a personal level, I'd hate to see a likable guy get fired. But as a Bills fan, I want what's best for the franchise. If he uses the wrong process to pick head coaches, quarterbacks, and (apparently) second round offensive tackles, he's probably not going to outperform the other GMs around the league. The Bills are extremely unlikely to bring home a Lombardi Trophy until Whaley is replaced.

I disagree. Look at his first round picks: Nate Clements. Result: played well for the Bills, especially in his contract year. Left a year after his rookie contract ended. Didn't set the world on fire after the 49ers overpaid for him. Mike Williams. Result: Bust. Drew Bledsoe (trade). Result: had eight spectacular games as a Bill. During his remaining 2.5 years, he failed to match the numbers Trent Edwards would later put up. (Which is really sad.) Was released at the end of his third year. Willis McGahee. Result: Was a reasonably good RB for the Bills. Was traded away for two third round picks. Lee Evans (13th overall). Result: a good #2 WR/deep burner, who didn't have what it took to be a #1 guy. J.P. Losman. Result: Bust. None of his first round picks turned into solid, long-term answers at their respective positions. The same could also be said about any player he drafted in rounds 2 - 7 not named Aaron Schobel. During his last year as GM, the Bills went 5-11. Not only were we 5-11, but it was an aging team. Some of its best talent including guys like Troy Vincent, Lawyer Milloy, and London Fletcher. That team had no quarterback, no offensive line, no receivers except Lee Evans, no tight end, not much on the defensive line except Aaron Schobel, and an aging linebacker corps. The secondary consisted of a mix of older players, or guys like Nate Clements who had one foot out the door.

I recently read Charles Duhigg's book The Power of Habit. It's very well researched, and recommended reading. The book mentions Tony Dungy, and his efforts to install new habits in the players he coached. Dungy's philosophy is that defenders typically look at too many information cues, making them slower to react than would otherwise have been the case. He worked to instill new habits. Teaching them to pay attention to a few information signals, and those signals only. When he was in Indy, the players bought into Dungy's approach during the regular season. But when the postseason came, they felt they had to do something more. Apparently, that "something more" consisted of going back to their old habits. The habits Dungy was trying to eradicate. To Dungy, the problem was a question of trust. They trusted his system enough to use it in the regular season, but not in the postseason. Then Dungy's son died. That death deepened the bond between players and coach, causing them to trust his system even in the postseason. The Colts went on to win the Super Bowl on the strength of their defense. As you pointed out, Manning didn't play particularly well during that postseason stretch. Unlike Joe Montana or Kurt Warner, Peyton Manning doesn't play better in the postseason than the regular season. If anything, he's a bit worse. But he's not necessarily as much worse as the Colts' string of one-and-done playoff appearances might suggest.