Orton's Arm

> They need to bolster the OL and they need to acquire a playmaking TE. Granted. But the Bills will probably lose at least two more games (Tampa Bay and New England), with additional losses possible. They'll likely have a top-10 pick. You don't use a pick like that on an OG or even a TE. > Steadily Big Ben got better and better to the point that he is now bordering on being an elite qb. The Jets used a similar model with Mark Sanchez. What you've described works great when you've chosen the right QB. If you start off with the assumption that Manuel is the right quarterback, everything you've written flows naturally. But the only way I could convince myself to share in that assumption would be to turn a blind eye to the things he hasn't shown. Or to pretend that most QBs can learn those things if given sufficient development time. > He doesn't have the natural impeccable accuracy that those types of special qbs possess. Agreed. In that sense he's similar to Fitz. Manuel's physical tools are worlds better than Fitz's. On the other hand, Fitz was very good at quickly and accurately processing large amounts of on-field information. There is no reason other than hope to believe that Manuel will develop a similar ability in the NFL, given that he showed no signs of it in college. Manuel's most likely ceiling is roughly at Fitz's level; with both quarterbacks possessing similar levels of accuracy, and with Manuel's physical tools offsetting Fitz's advantage in information processing. > This organization has no choice other than place their chips on the qb they brought to the table. On the contrary: they do have a choice. There is no rule against taking first round QBs two years in a row. If anyone within the organization questions the strategy, the response could be, "a typical first round QB chosen outside the top 5 has a 30% chance of working out. It's absolutely essential to get the QB position nailed down, so we're giving ourselves two chances to do that. Besides, we think the world of [QB X]."

Thanks for the links. From the Stafford profile: ************** Stafford is a top-notch prospect for the NFL. He is a No. 1 pick caliber player. His ability to read defenses along with his natural instincts will allow him to be a starter right off the bat. Stafford's big arm is one that is rare to come by and it helps him to be a big play type of QB. Stafford has a bright future ahead of him and with good NFL coaching he can become an elite type quarterback. Stafford's biggest need of improvement is his mental clock and awareness of the pass rush, with coaching he can develop this and become a franchise quarterback. ************** From Manuel's profile: ********* Manuel's elite arm strength and athleticism gives him all the physical potential an NFL team could ask for. However, he has major issues as a passer and has never developed into a high first-round pick despite the athletic ability to be that good. . . . . NFL sources who watch Florida State closely have told WalterFootball.com that Manuel is not a natural pocket passer. They don't feel he is as accurate as his completion percentage indicates. . . . The scheme that the Seminoles run also came under criticism. The view is that it is extremely basic and does not have Manuel well-prepared to run an NFL offense. Our sources believe that Manuel too often looks to run when his first-read is covered rather than quickly looking to his second and third options. . . . Manuel is going to need a lot of work at the next level on the practice field and in the film room before he is ready to be a starter. There is no doubt that Manuel has the athletic skill set to be a special player, but he will require developmental time in the NFL. It isn't out of the question for a team to reach on him late in the first round or for Manuel to fall to the fourth round. His stock is extremely fluid. ************

Stafford was taken first overall. Prior to the draft, I don't recall very many (any?) experts suggesting that this would be a reach. Below is a quote from NFL.com's pre-draft analysis of him: ******************* Quick to scan the field and go through his progressions . . . Consistent with excellent accuracy to all levels of the field . . . Has good deep accuracy and trajectory . . . Aggressive, but has developed into a smarter passer over his career and will take what the defense gives him by dropping to his second and third options . . . ************ There were some negatives mentioned as well; most notably concerns about his footwork and accuracy on crossing routes. However, the overall picture presented was of a pro-style college QB who'd demonstrated a lot of what you'd want to see from a franchise NFL QB. His ability to process information quickly, and go to his second and third reads, was an especially important part of that evaluation.

> Once you're done, stop the crusade. Please. You and several other Manuel supporters feel the need to respond to just about every anti-Manuel post out there; often in as loud and obnoxious a manner as possible. Please don't lecture me about crusades. Not that I'm trying to lump all Manuel supporters together. San Jose Bills Fan is a bright, articulate Manuel supporter; capable of conversing with the other side without turning it into a shouting match. The same could also be said of some other Manuel supporters, such as JohnC. As for the Stafford example: Stafford had proved far more as a pocket passer in college than had Manuel. An accomplished college pocket passer will sometimes get off to a rocky start in the NFL--which is also something that could be said of Drew Brees. If the Bills do take a QB in the 2014 draft, I'd want that new QB to sit and learn behind Manuel for at least one year, maybe two. That way Manuel would have more than just his rookie year in which to prove himself; without causing the Bills to waste a valuable opportunity to draft a franchise QB in 2014.

Good post. The questions the Bills need to ask themselves are these: "What has Manuel done to change our pre-draft assessment of him? What has he done to change the naysayers' predraft assessment of him?" The naysayers pointed out there were certain things Manuel didn't do in college. Manuel was apparently never asked to go beyond his second read; and probably didn't go beyond his first read very often either. It was rare for him to throw to anything other than a wide-open receiver. His accuracy was inconsistent. His footwork was often questionable. He had great physical tools to be sure, but there's a lot he didn't prove at the college level. That's why so many experts had one or more (usually more) QBs ranked ahead of him in a very weak 2013 QB draft. One of the naysayers' concerns has been at least partially addressed. Manuel will occasionally make a good throw to a tightly covered WR. This is extremely rare; but happens often enough for people to have some throws to point to; if pointing is what they want to do. Other than that one thing, Manuel hasn't done anything to disprove the naysayers' main arguments against him. On the other hand, he hasn't disproved his supporters' arguments either; because one could point to almost any rookie QB and say, "Maybe he'll outgrow his present limitations." But if a QB hasn't shown he can do a particular task in college; and if he hasn't shown he can do it in his rookie year in the NFL, odds are heavily against him ever learning to do that task. Manuel has several different things on his "hasn't yet shown" list--any one of which will cripple his ability to be a franchise QB if not corrected. However much positive emotion the Bills may have felt about drafting Manuel in the first place--however good they may have felt about "having a plan" and making Manuel the cornerstone of that plan--they need to carefully weigh the probability of his failing against the chance he'll succeed. They need to ask themselves this question in as unbiased a way as possible; as though they were evaluating the QB situation of the Detroit Lions or Arizona Cardinals, or some other team in whose success they have no vested interest. Then, having asked this question, they need to decide whether to take advantage of the QB opportunities which may await them in the first round of the 2014 draft.

I envy your optimism. The Bills haven't had a quarterback since Kelly hung up his cleats. I don't see much on-the-field evidence this has changed. There is a reasonable chance Gilmore will need to be replaced. Odds are Byrd will fly the coop; so that's another defensive starter needed. The Bills could also use another linebacker. They also need a TE. Fred Jackson isn't getting any younger, and Spiller is hardly what you'd call an every down player. The RB position will be something for the Bills to think about in the off-season. The Bills are probably at least two years away--more likely three--even if our front office does a rock solid job from this point forward.

I personally started out with more faith in Gilmore than Whitner. Vic Carucci didn't even have a Whitner rated as a first round talent; yet the Bills squandered the 8th overall pick on him. Why do that when there were perfectly good trade-down offers? On the other hand, Gilmore went about where most draft experts had him pegged. At least in this instance, the Bills' front office didn't seem to be doing something overtly stupid. "Not overtly boneheaded" is a long way away from any kind of guarantee of Gilmore working out; but at least it's a starting point. I'll be the first to admit that Gilmore isn't playing like a starting CB should play. I hope that's just a fluke, or the lingering effects of his injury. But we could be looking at a longer term problem here.

Gilmore: I hope he gets better. I really do. He's played better than this in the past. Is his arm still bothering him? Is he in less than 100% best possible condition? Is he suffering from a lack of confidence? Or maybe those better performances early on his career were a fluke; or something offenses figured out how to counter. I just don't know. As for Manuel: he averaged 6.5 yards per pass attempt: the same average Trent Edwards compiled over the course if his career. Like Edwards, Manuel relied mostly on dump offs. Saying he played well enough to win is like saying Trent Dilfer played well enough to win the Super Bowl. Football is a team sport. A "well enough to win" from a Trent Dilfer on the Ravens could represent a much worse individual performance than a "not well enough to win" from John Elway on a 7-9 Broncos team.

Good post Bill. I agree with most of the points you've raised. I know I'm going to take some flak for this, but I'm not ready to give up on Stevie. I agree he should have taken better care of the football; but the defender made a good play by dislodging it. I'm also not ready to give up on Gilmore, though I agree today was not a good day for him.

This.

The Indianapolis Colts weren't exactly bursting with talent when they drafted Peyton Manning. Had they been, they wouldn't have lost enough games to be able to draft first overall. Nor were they bursting with talent when they took Andrew Luck. After the Colts took Manning, they had some not-so-great years. But Manning gave them well over a decade of his career; and eventually they were able to build a team around him. A Super Bowl-winning team. I have no idea if RGIII will be able to do something similar for Washington. But if he's that kind of player, then the current struggles for the Redskins will someday seem about as irrelevant as the Colts' struggles early in Manning's career.

If you draft first round QBs in back-to-back years, there's a 9% chance of the question of trade value mattering; and a 91% chance of it not mattering. (Assuming one accepts the premise that a typical first round, non-top-5 QB has a 30% chance of becoming the long-term answer.) I don't want to get too caught up in arguing about that 9%; because the other 91% is much more important. From 1993 - present, the Bills have used first round picks on the following players: Thomas Smith (CB) Jeff Burris (CB) Antoine Winfield (CB) Nate Clements (CB) Donte Whitner (SS) Leodis McKelvin (CB) Stephon Gilmore (CB) And also on these players: Antowain Smith (RB) Willis McGahee (RB) Marshawn Lynch (RB) CJ Spiller (RB) That's eleven draft picks! Suppose that every one of those eleven first round picks had been used either on a) QBs, or b) traded for future picks to be used on QBs. With eleven extra first round picks being directly or indirectly thrown at the QB position, odds are very strong we would have found a long-term answer. Don't you think a long-term answer at QB--the next Jim Kelly or better--would be worth more to the team than all eleven of those guys combined? Besides that, it's quite possible that the Bills would have found their answer long before the eleventh first round pick used on a QB. If they'd gotten a rock solid QB after only five first round picks used on the position; then picks six - eleven could have been used on non-QBs. But no. That's not how this franchise has been run. If anyone at the QB position offered even a remote prayer of being the long-term answer, the Bills would not take a QB until it was absolutely certain that prayer wouldn't be answered. The following list of players caused the Bills to see QB as a non-need: Todd Collins, Rob Johnson, Drew Bledsoe, J.P. Losman, Trent Edwards, Ryan Fitzpatrick. When you use a first round pick on a JP Losman, you're squandering the pick. More importantly--at least if you're the Bills--you're squandering time. As long as the Bills have it in their heads that Losman is the quarterback of the future, he will displace all other QBs the Bills might otherwise have drafted. That scenario can be absolutely devastating--and has been devastating the Bills ever since Polian left. At this point, you could come back at me with, "It's too soon to know if Manuel is the next Losman, or if he's the next Russell Wilson." Fine. But it does not make sense to assume he's Russell Wilson until he proves beyond a reasonable doubt that he's Losman. If there's uncertainty--which there is--it's best to respond to that uncertainty by investing more resources into the QB position. Given that the QB position is by far the most important, it makes sense to err on the side of over-investing in that position.

San Jose Bills Fan has done a bang-up job in his recent posts. So much so that it's tempting for me to get a bit lazy here; and leave this discussion in his capable hands. That said, there's a point from your post which I'd like to address. > The Bills would have to believe that Manuel is definitely not the answer moving forward to select any QB you mentioned. To even begin to entertain that. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that the Bills decide there's a 30% chance of Manuel becoming the long-term answer; and a 30% chance of one of the guys SJBF mentioned becoming the answer. A Manuel-only approach gives the team a 30% chance to get the QB position fixed. Most first round QBs don't turn into long-term answers for the teams that drafted them. Assigning a 30% chance to any randomly-chosen first round QB is probably fairly accurate--especially if the QB in question wasn't taken in the top-5. Instead of the 30% chance of having the long-term answer on your roster (Manuel only), taking a second QB creates the following: 9% chance of both QBs working out 42% chance of exactly one QB working out 49% chance of neither QB working out If you run into that 9% chance, can you extract value from the situation by trading away one of your QBs for a good price? The answer is probably you can, if you go in with your eyes open. Cutler was traded away for two first round picks and sundry.

The reason the Chargers didn't get any compensation for Brees was because he and Rivers were drafted several years apart. By the time the Chargers were ready to fully commit to Rivers, Brees' contract was just about up. Also, Brees had suffered an injury; and it wasn't clear whether he'd fully recover. That lowered his perceived value to teams like Miami. A team drafting first round QBs in back-to-back years would be unlikely to encounter those problems. The Bengals took Carson Palmer first overall. Then they put him on the third string team; with Jon Kitna as the starter. Early in the year, Palmer looked very mistake-prone and unpolished with that third string team. Later in the year, he played very well in practice. Palmer was anointed starter at the beginning of his second year. He looked polished; like a guy who'd learned a lot as a rookie in practice. Aaron Rodgers is another guy who benefitted from time on the bench early in his career. Tom Donahoe represents faux unconventional thinking. The only reason for ever departing from convention is because you've thought about an area more deeply than conventional thinkers have; and have perceived insights they have missed. For someone who isn't a deep thinker, departing from conventional wisdom is usually a mistake. A person like that is unlikely to avoid the errors embodied in conventional thinking; and is likely to make additional errors a conventional thinker would have avoided. The West Coast offense was not considered conventional when Bill Walsh first unleashed it. Ideas like passing on first down, blitzing, or going into a nickel defense on third down were once considered gimmicky things that only AFL teams would do--not the conventional NFL teams. The most likely way to win a Super Bowl is to do something better than other teams do it. This often requires better thinking than that embodied by convention. During the pre- and post-Kelly eras combined, the Bills have achieved one NFL playoff win. The Bills have had exactly one franchise QB in team history. Using back-to-back first round picks on QBs is a logical response to the vital importance of the QB position, the difficulty of finding a franchise QB, and the trade opportunities available to a team with a very good QB on the auction block.

Back when the Chargers had both Rivers and Brees on the roster, they had to choose one guy or the other. They chose Rivers, despite the fact he'd been given little playing time up to that point. This year, Rivers is having the best season of any QB in the NFL. If you have two QBs of Rivers/Brees caliber on your roster, then in the long term you'll only be able to keep one of them. Whichever guy you make the backup will not sign any kind of contract extension, so he's gone when his first contract is over. That means that one of your QBs must be traded before that happens. Normally you'd trade away whichever QB was getting the lion's share of playing time; because that will be the QB with the most trade value. Much more trade value than a backup who's played very little! A strategy like this only makes sense if you like the second QB drafted at least as much as the first one you took. The second QB will be the guy who replaces the first QB once he's traded away. So you have to have confidence in him. If both QBs work out, then you'll be able to trade away one of them for significantly more than the draft pick initially used to take him. If only one QB works out, at least you still have a QB. If neither work out, at least you gave yourself two chances at bat.

> Did I just read that once you have a franchise QB you can trade him away for a "ton of trade value?" Ah, K-9. It's always a pleasure to read your posts. You always have so much insight to offer. I take my earlier post back. If you took two different QBs in the first round, in back-to-back years, and if they both worked out well, you couldn't trade either of them away for much. Thank you so much for enlightening us little ones about this. I don't know what I was thinking, to believe that either of those guys could have been traded away for substantial value!

I can't believe some of the people here! Next thing you know, some of you will be saying that even this is against the rules!

Very good post! Once you have a young QB who's franchise or looks like he's on the way to becoming at or near a franchise level, you can trade him away for a ton of draft value. That's why it makes so much sense for the Bills to take a first round QB, assuming there's a guy they like. That said, you correctly pointed out it's very uncommon for a team to use back-to-back first round picks on QBs. That's the kind of move I'd expect from an outside-the-box guy like Chip Kelly; not necessarily from a team wedded to the conventional wisdom of 30 years ago. As usual, there's a difference between what the Bills should do and what they will do.

> A logjam at the QB position these days is almost unthinkably good. Very true. The Bills have repeatedly (deliberately?) created logjams at the RB position. The result was a third round pick for trading away Travis Henry, two third rounders for trading Willis McGahee, a fourth + 6th rounder when Marshawn Lynch went up on the trading block, and no compensation at all when the Bills released Antowain Smith. Compare that to the two first rounders, the Kyle Orton, and the other stuff Denver got for trading away Cutler! It's not even like Cutler is a top-10 QB! And yet: the Bills have repeatedly acted as though a logjam at the RB position is perfectly reasonable; whereas a logjam at QB would be unthinkable. > If this ever happens we will see trades that resemble the Herschel Walker deal, which I am guessing that you are old enough to remember. I vaguely remember that deal. That said, I agree with your premise. If I was a GM trading away a Luck-caliber QB, I'd expect a lot more than just two first round picks! Likewise, if I was the GM trading for a player like that; I'd be willing to part with more than just two first rounders. Let's just hope the Bills are intelligent and flexible enough in their thinking to actually benefit from all this; rather than allowing themselves to become mired in conventional thinking.

Good point. My earlier post should have been expressed more clearly. "The main argument against taking a first round QB in 2014," I should have written, "would be that both players would work out; in which case you'd have a logjam at that position. But that's actually not a bad problem to have. On the other hand, taking a second bite at the apple makes it that much more likely that at least one QB prospect will work out."

This. Worst case, we end up with a Rivers/Brees situation. Considering there's been precisely one franchise QB in the team's entire history, a Brees/Rivers situation doesn't look so bad!

> Wow, that's the longest, "I was right!" post I've ever seen. Why thank you. > Don't hurt your arm patting yourself on the back. Don't worry: I'm very flexible. And I appreciate your concern.

> That Pittsburgh game was . . . That Pittsburgh game was three years ago. Around the time that Tom Brady threw four interceptions in a game against the Bills. Do you feel that Brady's four interception performance encapsulated everything that was wrong with him as a QB? That it was proof positive that he wasn't (and never was) the answer at QB? Stevie isn't as good at WR as Brady is as quarterback. Does that difference mean that we should look at the bigger picture for Brady only, while honing in with laser-like focus on the very worst game of Stevie's career? If the bigger picture for Stevie doesn't include any clunkers more recent than the Pittsburgh game, and does include three consecutive 1000 yard seasons, then what is the problem?

Character isn't the only thing you should look for in a football player. But it's one of the things. Do you think Ryan Leaf had good character?

Not bad. For those viewing that thread, I recommend starting on page 308. EDIT - http://forums.theganggreen.com/showthread.php?t=78636&page=308