Orton's Arm

You're too stupid to understand even basic concepts like expected value. ************ Example 1. Let X represent the outcome of a roll of a fair six-sided die. More specifically, X will be the number of pips showing on the top face of the die after the toss. The possible values for X are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, all equally likely (each having the probability of 1/6). The expectation of X is *********** Maybe 3.5 seems like nonsense to you. But it seems perfectly sound to people who, you know, have working brains.

> You are stating the obvious when you make the point that not having a franchise qb curtails the team's odds on being a seriously competive team. I'm glad we're in agreement about this point. At least as of a few years ago, nine out of the last ten Super Bowl winners had had either franchise QBs, or else guys who'd played at a franchise level. You're much more likely to win a Super Bowl with a franchise QB, than you are trying to be the Ravens of 2000 or the Bucs of 2002. > The Bills used a first round pick on a qb prospect they thought could develop into a franchise qb. And in so doing, made the same mistake they made with Losman. Both Losman and Manuel have great physical gifts. But neither had demonstrated he could operate a college offense with multiple reads. Neither were particularly good pocket passers at the college level. Both were considered "raw." A number of teams questioned whether Losman or Manuel should be first round picks. > What else do you expect them to do? I expect them to recognize that the odds of Manuel failing are much higher than the chances of him succeeding. This isn't only because most first round QBs fail (although that's a point worth bearing in mind). It's because Manuel belongs to an exceptionally risky category of first round QB: a "raw" prospect selected largely for his great physical tools. The 2015 draft could turn out to have a significant amount of QB talent. Unfortunately, none of that first round QB talent will be available to the Bills. > Criticizing this regime for the mistakes of the past is patently unfair. I am not criticizing this regime for mistakes made in the past. I'm criticizing it for repeating the mistakes of the past.

> I've already answered your question: the guy played well in college, won 4 of 4 bowl games, We've been over that. I provided a list of QBs who'd won Heisman Trophies. Guys with plenty of victories in bowl games, great college YPA, and so forth. Very few of those guys had much success in the NFL. > Just what is your definition of "raw"? A "raw" quarterback runs a simplified college offense. He almost always throws to his first read, or at most to his dump-off option if the first read is covered. A "raw" QB is a guy who's done little or nothing to suggest he can handle the very rapid information processing normally required to excel at the NFL level. Most college QBs can never develop that information processing ability, regardless of effort or experience. When a college QB is considered "raw," it's normally a sign he's like the vast majority of college QBs; and will never process information quickly enough to be great in the NFL.

> By his own admission, since Kelly retired, he has been wrong as often as right Actually, that's by your admission, not mine. > (I threw out Bledsoe) I predicted Bledsoe would not play well enough for the Bills to justify the first round pick we'd traded for him. A lot of people disagreed with me including TD (who made the trade) and Levy (who praised it). I'm still at a loss as to why you've chosen to discount that successful prediction. And--at the risk of sounding repetitive--my errors have come when I've predicted success for a particular QB. Not when I've predicted failure.

> Numbers for numbers sake which is what you're providing is a waste of everyone's time. I did not provide the numbers for their own sakes. I provided them to prove the point that the best QBs from any one era typically have very similar YPAs to the best QBs from any other era. There is no reason to believe there has been significant inflation or deflation in YPA stats over the years. In the absence of this inflation or deflation, yards per attempt stats can be used to compare QBs from different eras, at least in broad terms. I have two reasons for having chosen YPA in particular: 1. Yards per pass attempt is to quarterbacks what yards per rush attempt is to running backs. 2. The New York Times did a regression analysis, and found that six variables predict 80% of the difference in teams' winning percentages. The six variables are yards per pass attempt, yards per rush attempt, interception percentage, and the defensive equivalents thereof. Of these, yards per pass attempt was three times as important as either of the other two. (Meaning, that a 1 SD improvement in yards per attempt would result in three times as many additional wins as would a 1 SD improvement in either yards per rush attempt or INT percentage.) > I'm interested in Terry Bradshaw. Terry Bradshaw: 7.2 (1970 - 1983) Fran Tarkenton: 7.3 (1961 - 1978) Phil Simms: 7.2 (1979 - 1993)

Let's say I predict failure for 100 out of 100 "raw" QBs. And let's say that 99 out of 100 fail, and one succeeds. Then another 100 raw QBs come along, and I again predict failure for all 100. At this point in the conversation, you could pick one guy out of the hundred, more or less at random, and say, "Maybe this is the one time you'll be wrong." If you weren't a Bills fan, would you have any reason for thinking that Manuel will be the rare exception to the general rule of raw QBs failing at the NFL level?

> We get it. Evidently you do not. > You don't think that EJ will develop into a good enough QB (though you admit yourself that you are regularly wrong in your assessment of a QB's potential). I've admitted that I've been too optimistic about some QBs. I literally can't remember the last time I confidently predicted failure for a particular QB, only to watch him succeed. > Considering the concept that you know that your assessment on EJ could well be wrong..... I "know" no such thing. "Raw" quarterbacks are statistically very unlikely to ever become franchise QBs. A QB who does not demonstrate the things you'd like to see in a pocket passer at the college level is extremely unlikely to do so in the NFL. Drafting a raw QB and calling him your QB of the future is like buying a lottery ticket and calling it your retirement plan.

Since you evidently want more stats, below is a list of QBs, their career YPAs, and years played. Roger Staubach: 7.7 (1969 - 1979) Dan Fouts: 7.7 (1973 - 1987) Bart Starr: 7.8 (1956 - 1971) Joe Montana: 7.5 (1979 - 1994) Johnny Unitas: 7.8 (1956 - 1973) Tom Brady: 7.5 Peyton Manning: 7.6 Drew Brees: 7.5 Jack Kemp: 6.9 (1957 - 1969) Joe Ferguson: 6.6 (1973 - 1990) J.P. Losman: 6.6

No. There's been inflation in QB rating stats over the years, as the NFL has gravitated toward more West Coast offenses. But yards per attempt stats have remained relatively stable over the years. Peyton Manning's career yards per attempt is 7.6, and Tom Brady's is 7.5. Joe Montana's was also 7.5, and Johnny Unitas's is 7.8. The best QBs from past eras have achieved comparable yards per attempt stats as the best QBs from this era. Trent Edwards' career yards per attempt stat was 6.5; and Losman's was 6.6. Joe Ferguson's was also 6.6. By no conceivable stretch of the imagination was Ferguson a franchise quarterback. Jack Kemp had a career yards per attempt of 6.9. That's better than Ferguson, but not good enough to be considered franchise. Also, Kemp had a TD/INT ratio of 0.6, which is well below what you'd hope to see from a franchise QB.

> If the orgnization drafts well and finds their franchise qb then they can compete at a higher level and position themselves for a more serious SB run some day down the line. Finding a franchise QB is easier said than done. Below is a list of AFC East teams, together with the number of franchise QBs they've had since the first Super Bowl. Buffalo: 1 (Jim Kelly) New England Patriots: 1.5 (Tom Brady, and the first half of Bledsoe's career) Miami: 2 New York Jets: 1 (Joe Namath) Every Super Bowl victory achieved by an AFC East team has been achieved with the help of a franchise QB. Nearly every Super Bowl appearance by an AFC East team involved a franchise QB also. Finding a franchise QB fundamentally changes the equation for your football team. Without a franchise QB, a GM has to try to be so strong at non-QB positions that he compensates for his team's weakness at QB. It's very difficult to hold a complete team together for any length of time. Some of your best players will leave in free agency, as Byrd just did. Or they'll get old and pass the peak of their usefulness. Complete teams typically don't stay complete for very long. > Is EJ the answer? You conclusively say no while I suggest that we should be more patient on the qb issue and see how it plays out. If Manuel were to become the second franchise QB in Bills' history, it would fundamentally change my analysis. Whether that will or won't happen has already been discussed elsewhere. My expectation is that he won't rise to that level; and that the front office will spend the next two to three years figuring that out. That means wasting two to three years of every current Bills' player's career--at least as far as Super Bowl opportunities go. By that point, guys like Kyle Williams and Mario Williams will be nearing the ends of their careers; and even a guy like Eric Wood will have much more of his career behind him than in front of him. > It seems to me under Whaley he has stabilized this very chaotic organization and made it into a normal franchise Much the same thing was said when TD took over the reins from Butler. Similar optimistic sentiments were voiced a year or so after Marv took over from TD. Or when Buddy Nix took over from Marv/Jauron. The common thread throughout all of these regimes is that they lacked a viable plan to achieve long-term success at quarterback. In the absence of such a plan, everything else they did proved ephemeral and ineffectual.

> You don't have to be head over heels in love with the team, but prior to the start of a > season (heck, prior to the start of TC) you can't find anything to like? You can't post > something without also taking a backhand at the GM, or coach, or QB? You always > have to focus on the negative? The Bills haven't won a playoff game since 1995. Since then, there's been a lot of heartbreak. We've also been sold a lot of false hope. Many of us--including me--have bought into at least some of these false hopes. In the late '90s, I remember getting excited about the quarterback Rob Johnson would become. I remember believing an article about how Erik Flowers was going to "bloom." I remember my excitement over the Mike Williams pick. After getting your feet knocked out from under you enough times, you stop swallowing everything you're fed. You abandon the "front office must know best" belief held by many Bills' fans, and start doing your own thinking. Did the team do some positive things this offseason? Absolutely. Sammy Watkins has the potential to be an elite playmaker. Talent has been added at RB and on the offensive line. Some other players have been added too. I acknowledge all that. But taking a step back and looking at the big picture, I don't see a plan in place to build a Super Bowl winner. At best, I see a plan which--if successful--will create a team like the Mark Sanchez Jets; back when that Jets team was good. I'm talking about a team which goes maybe 10-6, wins a playoff game or two, and gets knocked out in the divisional round. I'm not saying this stuff is what will happen. I'm saying it's the ceiling of Whaley's plan. It's not a scenario which will last very long either. After one or two of those 10-6 seasons, the team will decline; much like the Mark Sanchez Jets declined. But plenty of my fellow Bills fans don't see things that way. They are buying into the hype, just as I once bought into the hype from some of the earlier Bills' regimes. It's less painful to take a realistic view from the beginning, than it is to build a tower of hope on a foundation of quicksand. I know from personal experience what it's like to pour emotional energy into this team, only to have them rip your heart out. I don't want to see other Bills fans exposed to this any more than necessary.

The beauty of the strategy you've described is that you get to expend your first round picks replacing departing veterans. If a hamster wheel is entertaining for hamsters, why not for football teams?

> Lewis had a better QBR . . . QBR stands for total quarterback rating. Total quarterback rating--QBR--is a newer, and much more useful stat than the old quarterback rating stat. My two favorite stats are yards per attempt and QBR. The old quarterback rating stat is useless because it makes short passing game QBs look better than they should; and deep passers look worse than they should. Kelly Holcomb and John Elway have nearly identical career quarterback ratings; which alone should be sufficient to discredit that stat as a way of comparing QBs. But I'm very open to using the new stat: QBR. Until I read your post, I hadn't realized that Thad Lewis's QBR for 2013 was only 24.1. To put that into perspective, Ryan Tannehill had a QBR of 45.8, Christian Ponder had a QBR of 51.2, and Jake Locker had a QBR of 58.1. Thad Lewis looks like a third string quarterback--at least according to QBR. The reason I thought Thad Lewis had played significantly better than Manuel was because Lewis averaged 6.9 yards per attempt last season. Manuel averaged a mere 6.4. For comparison, Trent Edwards has a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt; and Tom Brady's career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. If 1.0 yards per attempt separate Trent Edwards from Tom Brady, then a difference of 0.5 yards per attempt is more than enough to make you sit up and take notice! With Manuel having a significant advantage over Lewis in QBR, and Lewis having a sizable edge in yards per attempt, it's not entirely clear which guy had the statistically better 2013 season. I may have to give the benefit of the doubt to Manuel on this one, due to the extreme weakness of Lewis's QBR.

> Landry's last season as HC was 1988, and the Cowboys went 3-13. Thanks for the correction. > IMHO, the Bills could have just as easily had the first overall pick, and Levy/Jauron would still have found a way to !@#$ it up It's hard to argue with that. It could be argued that the first overall pick matters more when you have a good GM. Polian has had the first overall pick three times in his career. Those three picks resulted in Bruce Smith, Kerry Collins, and Peyton Manning. Smith and Manning are the two best football players Polian ever drafted. > As you said, Lewis played better than EJ "statistically", but my eyes tell me there is nothing about his play that suggests he is anything more than a backup at best. I agree with your characterization of Thad Lewis. My eyes tell me he's a backup also--albeit a solid backup. > My eyes tell me EJ has a higher potential. Sometimes a QB will make a very good play here and there. It's easy to see something like that and think to yourself, this guy has the potential to be great. He just needs to do that great play stuff all the time, instead of just a little here and there. It's possible there are a few very good plays by Manuel which are making you think he has greater potential. There's also the possibility of allowing the two QBs' pedigrees to influence how we see them. One was a first round pick. The other was a free agent we were able to sign long after the start of the season, because no one else wanted him. To be completely honest, I don't know why your eyeballs tell you that Manuel has greater potential than Lewis. Nor do I know why my own eyeballs tell me the two QBs have about the same level of potential. When Manuel went out and Lewis came in, my gut told me we were at least as likely to win with Lewis as we'd been with Manuel. Off the top of my head, I don't recollect Manuel doing anything that seemed beyond the ability of Lewis. But my memory isn't perfect, and it's quite possible there are some plays I'm forgetting.

> I think that you know how much I enjoy your posts. I feel the same way about yours. During the season, I always look forward to reading your thoughts about the game (in no particular order). > That said, wanting the Bills to go 0-16 is impossible to defend under any conditions Tom Landry was a legendary coach. But when the Cowboys went 1-15, he was fired. Jimmy Johnson took his place; and was also given control of player personnel decisions. Because of that 1-15 season, the Cowboys received the first overall pick--which they used on Troy Aikman. If Tom Landry had gone 8-8 or 9-7 that year, instead of 1-15, he might not have gotten fired. The Cowboys wouldn't have drafted Aikman or hired Jimmy Johnson; and wouldn't have gone on to win those Super Bowls. Would you take a 1-15 or 0-16 season if it meant the Bills would soon win three Super Bowls in four years? To give a few more examples: back in 1997, the Colts went 1-15. They used the first overall pick on Peyton Manning. As Manning was nearing retirement they went 2-14; and used the first overall pick on Andrew Luck. The closest the Bills have come to doing something like that was in 1984; when we went 1-15. We used the first overall pick of the '85 draft on Bruce Smith. It's better to go 1-15 and get a Bruce Smith or a Peyton Manning; than go 5-11 and get stuck with Donte Whitner. Unless you've traded your first round pick in next year's draft to the Cleveland Browns. But even then, a 1-15 season could work out in our favor, if it resulted in the same magnitude of front office upgrade that the Cowboys experienced after Landry's 1-15 season. While I won't be rooting for a 1-15 season, neither will you see me attack the OP. > Btw, Whaley's first draft was interesting. He took a first round qb and actually gained a second round pick while doing so. It's not clear how much of that was Whaley and how much was Nix. Either way, the Robert Woods and Kiko picks were excellent choices. > so they went "all in" by trading the future for a wideout. Sometimes a team is better off with one elite player than two good players. I'm not opposed to Watkins type trades in principle. I just wish we hadn't traded away next year's first rounder when there are serious question marks at quarterback. > At this point Lewis is as good as EJ, At least statistically, Lewis played significantly better than EJ during 2013. By no means am I suggesting we should write off every QB who has a bad rookie year. It's good to be patient--at least with QBs who should have been first round picks in the first place.

> For the record, EJ was a 66.9% passer at FSU, and whether you want to acknowlege it or not, that stat does indeed tell the story regarding accuracy. Tim Tebow was a 67.1% passer at University of Florida. Do you feel that stat tells the story about Tebow's accuracy? > If your assertion is that he's similar to Tebow, well, I'll have to ask if you've EVER seen him play at all? My assertion is that most college QBs cannot process information quickly enough to become great at the NFL level. Manuel, Tebow, and Losman are similar in that respect. Just as the three QBs were also similar in having good foot speed. This is not to suggest that the three guys are identical across the board. > Tell me please: if he had a good completion percentage, and a very good YPA (both better than Manning in college by the way), how can he be so inaccurate? You keep bringing up his college stats. But you've inadequately addressed the issue I've raised. Namely, that there are plenty of college QBs who put up gaudy stats who later fail in the NFL. Below is a list of college QBs who won Heisman Trophies, from 1989 - 2011: Andre Ware Ty Detmer Gino Torretta Charlie Ward Danny Wuerffel Chris Weinke Eric Crouch Carson Palmer Jason White Matt Leinart Troy Smith Tim Tebow Sam Bradford Cam Newton Robert Griffin III While some of the guys on the list have gone on to have NFL success, most have been abject failures. But if you pick out any one of them, odds are he's going to have gaudy college stats. Danny Wuerffel averaged 9.3 yards per attempt in college. Chris Weinke averaged 8.9 yards per attempt in college. > Furthermore, isn't it possible that--looking down the road--they felt there isn't a franchise guy they'd like a whole lot in 2015 either? The above is a best-case scenario, at least if we're evaluating the competence of the front office. While what you described is possible, it's not very likely. Bear in mind that the 2015 draft class contains Hundley, Mariota, and Winston. I find it very difficult to believe the Bills' front office has already written off all three players so completely as to decide their 2015 first round pick would be wasted on a QB even if Manuel failed. > You've seen enough of Manuel to say that he cannot execute a full playbook? Nothing about Manuel's college play indicated he could handle the rapid information processing absolutely required to excel at the NFL level. It's possible that with more time and coaching, he'll show signs of that where there had been none before. Possible, but highly unlikely.

> If you'd like to re-read it and offer your own summary feel free. Okay. The OP does not believe the Bills' front office and coaching staff can build a Super Bowl winner. The sooner they get replaced, the sooner the new owner will have the opportunity to put the team on a Super Bowl winning path. If going 0-16 is the price needed to get off the wrong path and onto the right one, the OP is prepared to pay that price with his eyes open. > I'm sorry, but 4-0 in Bowl games and a YPA and QB rating that was better than Peyton Manning coming out of Tennessee disagrees with that assessment. In college, Peyton Manning averaged a YPA of 8.1. Tim Tebow's college YPA was 9.4. While I'm not a fan of the QB rating stat, Tebow's college QB rating was 170.8; compared to Peyton Manning's 147.1. YPA, QB rating, and bowl games are not necessarily good tools with which to evaluate college QBs. The correct way to evaluate college QBs is to watch tape, not crunch statistics. When watching tape, you should look for accuracy, the ability to fit the ball into tight places, the ability to quickly read the field and see multiple targets; and the ability to hit the receiver in stride. Peyton Manning did a very good job with these things in college. Neither Tebow nor Manuel were strong in most of these areas; which is why--despite their gaudy college statistics--neither of them were remotely comparable to Manning as QB prospects. > while I appreciate your desire to draw conclusions about my thought process without ever asking any questions . . . How is that any different than the way you treated the OP? But to return to the subject of my comment: the theme of Gladwell's book is that sometimes a quick glance can tell you a great deal. (At least when your instincts have been augmented by training and life experience.) To give an example, people have a strong financial incentive to create fake antique statuary. In one case, a man began selling statues which he claimed were antiques. They passed every chemical test to which they were subjected. But when they were seen by experts in the area, their first, gut level reaction was that the statues seemed "fresh." It later turned out that the statues were fake. The OP is asking us to take the "blink" concept described in Gladwell's eponymous book, and apply it to E.J. Manuel. > is it your opinion that Whaley should've drafted another QB early, or are you more worried about the "what do we do next year if EJ fails" scenario? I personally would have drafted a QB early, if there was a QB prospect I liked. I understand this is not typical NFL GM thinking, and I'm not willing to write Whaley off due to his failure to address the QB position in this draft. But by trading away his first round pick, he closed the door on taking a QB early in the 2015 draft. That's an extremely bold move, and seems to demonstrate a high degree of confidence in Manuel. Confidence I believe is wholly unjustified. > why don't we wait and see what the offense looks like with the full playbook before drawing any conclusions? I have already concluded that Gailey was much better than Hackett at finding ways to use Spiller. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Spiller goes first-contract-and-out due to no longer having what (for him) would be a good coaching situation in Buffalo. Will there be additional costs to having Hackett, in addition to the probable loss of Spiller? I don't know. Losman was never able to run a complete NFL offense. During his one good year, the Bills' coaching staff had to greatly simplify their offense so that he could be effective. I've read that Manuel ran a simplified college offense, and I don't expect things to be any different in the NFL. Hackett may never get the chance to install a complete, complex NFL offense. Which is probably something he should have considered before becoming part of the "consensus" which led to the selection of Manuel.

A few days ago, I was in a waiting room. I came across an old issue of Sports Illustrated, so I began reading an article about Kuechley. The article really made me wish he was a Bill. But at least when the article was written--November 2013--the Panthers had the second-best defense in the NFL. I think that defensive improvement goes a long way toward explaining why the Panthers as a team did so much better in Cam Newton's third year than in his first.

I played soccer for two years as a kid. Never understood the appeal of watching it though.

> So the entire post is "I'm an optimist, and I think we suck, so you should all agree with my opinions or you're 4th graders"? That is a blatant mischaracterization of the OP. > No, the offense isn't worse. You're probably right. Young WRs like Woods will have another year of experience. That will help; as will the new offensive linemen you noted, and the addition of Watkins. > To say the defense is worse is an assumption, not an undeniable truth as you claim. That may be, but Pettine did a lot with a little. My impression of Schwartz is that he doesn't have Pettine's level of creativity or innovation. Schwartz's defenses look good when all the pieces are just so. But nothing about his track record suggests he has Pettine's gift for using lemons to make lemonade. > As to EJ, nobody knows whether or not he's a franchise guy... Perhaps. But nothing about his play in college suggested he should have been taken in the first two rounds. When you reach for a third round QB in the first round, you don't then have a guy who's as likely to succeed as any other first round QB. > all I can tell you is that it would be irrefutably ignorant for someone to gauge their opinion based on whether or not they can picture a guy lifting a piece of metal If you read the book Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, you might change your view about this. The OP is 100% right about the need to get rid of the bean counters. Littmann and Overdorf have been harming this franchise for decades. I think he's also right about the need to get rid of Marrone and his coaching staff. The one creative, innovative part of that coaching staff was Pettine; and Pettine is now in Cleveland. And--I hate to say this--but he's probably also right about the need to get rid of the front office. Signing the worst offensive lineman of the Rams to a multi-year, solid starter money contract was a head-scratching move. The kind of move Marv the GM would have made. Going all-in on EJ--as Whaley did this past draft--is the kind of mistake which gets you fired.

> Since Kelly retired, I believe we established in another thread that at best you have been right 58% The predictions I made were as follows: Optimistic about Rob Johnson (an error) Predicted Drew Bledsoe wouldn't justify the first round pick we spent for him (correct prediction) Predicted failure for Losman (correct prediction) Optimistic about Trent Edwards (an error) Stated Fitz would not be the long-term answer at QB (correct prediction) That's a 60% success rate. > You predicted Bledsoe would fail, but he had success prior to being a Bill, and he was at the end of his career. So I think he gets thrown out. I don't understand your position here. We all knew Bledsoe had achieved a lot prior to becoming a Bill. But the first round pick we traded away for him wasn't to reward the Patriots for Bledsoe's past career accomplishments. It was because TD felt that Bledsoe would contribute more to the Bills than a first round pick would have. During Bledsoe's second and third years with the Bills, his yards per attempt stat was lower than Trend Edwards' career average. If Bledsoe couldn't even play at the same level as Trent Edwards, then trading away a first round pick was a mistake on TD's part. Which is exactly what I'd said when the trade was made. > How is it that you conclude you are more likely to be right? In the past when I've gotten burned, it's because I've given a QB too much credit, not too little. That goes for Rob Johnson, Trent Edwards, and several QBs drafted by non-Bills teams. If I'm predicting success for a QB, I have at best a 50% chance of being right. But if I'm predicting failure for a guy, the odds of me being right rise dramatically. I've been right every time I've predicted failure for a Bills' QB, and just about every time I predicted failure for a non-Bills QB.

> Goodell works for the owners. His job is to support the agenda of the majority of the owners . . . This is true. However, his job is complicated by the fact that the owners have become divided into two philosophical groups. For want of better terms, I'll call these the "traditional group"--think the late Wellington Mara--and the "money-grubbing group"--think Jerry Jones. Over the last decade, the money-grubbing group has gained ground. Ticket prices have gone up considerably. There is more--and more annoying--television advertising than there'd been ten years ago. The NFL has become more active in other attempts to part fans from their cash. Stadiums have often lost their traditional names; replaced by the names of corporate sponsors. Instead of football games during usual NFL times only, there are now a lot more games on Thursday nights or other non-standard times. The fans expect two things from the NFL. 1) A reasonable quantity of entertainment for the amount of time or money invested. 2) They expect the NFL to respect its own traditions. If the NFL doesn't respect its own traditions, why should the fans? If the NFL doesn't provide the fan with these two things, there will be a backlash. Former NFL fans will find non-football-related ways of entertaining themselves. The money grubbing group wants to squeeze the goose that lays the golden eggs. Sure, they might extract a little more gold in the short-term. But what does that do to the long-term health of the goose? Goodell is not necessarily in an enviable position here. He's best off if he maintains the trust of both groups of owners. On the other hand, the long-term future of the NFL could be seriously altered if the money grubbing group continues to get too much of what they want. There needs to be a balance between the wishes of the money-grubbing group, the wishes of the traditional group, and the interests of the fans. Goodell is not in a position to stand up to the money grubbing owners. That job is the responsibility of the rest of the owners; not of Goodell. But what Goodell can do is look for compromise solutions--solutions which get the money-grubbing owners the money they want; while showing more respect for NFL fans and NFL traditions than the money grubbing owners would, if left to their own devices. The most we as fans can hope for from Goodell--or from any NFL commissioner for that matter--is to search for these compromise solutions, and to try to persuade the owners to accept them.

> However - I am not sure there is anyone who is has "predicted success" for EJ and can therefore claim they were "right." There was one poster who wanted the Bills to use their first round pick on Manuel, and their second round pick on either Robert Woods or the best available LB. There have been several others who expressed the view that the Bills' front office made a very good move by using a first round pick on Manuel. Granted, I don't recall anyone in this category expressing 100% certainty Manuel would succeed, any more than I expressed 100% certainty he'd fail. Nevertheless, if Manuel has a great NFL career, I'll be more than happy to say that people in this category were right about him, and that I was wrong. > The bottom line for me is - when will you know if you were wrong? If we make the playoffs this year? You've raised a good question. I'd initially predicted Bledsoe wouldn't be worth the first round pick we traded for him. I remember eating my words somewhere during his first eight games as a Bill. It was a premature meal! Bledsoe wasn't worth the first round pick we traded for him. This time around, I intend to be a bit more cautious about eating my words--assuming such a discussion becomes necessary at all. Take a guy like Losman. During his one good year, he put up some pretty decent numbers in a very simplified offense. If Manuel does the same thing, it wouldn't necessarily make sense for me to admit to being wrong about him, any more than I was wrong in predicting failure for Losman. But if Manuel starts doing things Losman never did--reading the whole field, successfully running a complex offense, etc.--and if he does these things for a sustained amount of time, it might then be time for me to reevaluate my opinion.

> As far as the backup QB situation last year, the Bills had signed Matt Flynn and kept him for awhile and then preferred Jeff Tuel over him for some unknown reason. A lot of teams want their backup QB to be a seasoned veteran. A steady hand at the helm if the starter goes down. But they want their 3rd string QB to be a developmental guy. An unknown who might turn out to be something special. By this point in his career, Flynn is more or less a known quantity. Tuel was unknown. Most of the time, a team's developmental 3rd string QB will never amount to anything. But on rare occasions, he'll turn out to be a Kurt Warner or a Tom Brady. Now that the Bills have gotten a good look at Tuel, it might be time to part ways with him and put the next developmental QB on the roster. (At least assuming they identify a somewhat promising replacement.) > Shifting gears again in regards to Matt Schaub. Sometimes QB's play with injuries that really hamper their ability to do their jobs, and yet don't want to pull themselves I agree with this; and with your Kurt Warner example. I also remember times when Kelly would play despite being injured, even though his injuries significantly impacted the quality of his play. For example, one time a DB intercepted Kelly, and was in the process of returning the INT for what would have been a touchdown. Kelly tackled the DB so hard it broke the guy's leg. Unfortunately, Kelly's throwing shoulder was also injured on the play, and he wasn't the same quarterback for at least a good 5 - 6 games after that.

> So I go to the ESPN 2013 all division QBR site and who's #1? Josh McCown. Very early in his career, Byrd often achieved two interceptions per game. Lots of times, the guy with the most INTs for your team for the year will have maybe 6 or 7. But had Byrd sustained that pace over the course of the season, he would have had a record-breaking 32 INTs for the year. Over a 10 year career; that would have added up to 320 INTs. That's six times as many career interceptions as Deion Sanders! (Who had 53.) Jairus Byrd is a good, solid football player. But he isn't six times better than Deion Sanders. Sometimes, when a player appears in only a few games, his stats make him look better than he really is. In 2013, McCown attempted only 1/3 as many passes as Peyton Manning. So you're looking at a small sample size. I'm sure that with a larger sample, his QBR would decline. Just as his ridiculously good 13:1 TD/INT ratio would also decline. > Please recognize that to a certain extent, QB are evaluated by the success of their team. There's truth to this. Steve Young was considered a disappointment in Tampa Bay; which is why the 49ers were able to acquire him for a 2nd round pick. A QB is part of a machine. He looks better than he should when the other parts are good; and worse than he should when the other parts are faulty. > But the fact is, [schaub] DID have an abysmal season in 2013, and while I'd like to see him bounce back . . . I don't know why he had the lousy season either. If it was something physical, maybe he'll heal. If it was something mental, maybe he'll get his head on straight this year. Either way, there's a chance he'll bounce back and produce good play. Some of these other teams have nothing at quarterback--no real chance to get good QB play. Even if there's only a 20% chance of Schaub bouncing back, that's still 20 percentage points more than some other teams have.