Orton's Arm

> Orton, who is at best is a below average starter . . . Orton is currently ranked 16th in air yards per attempt. If you were to divide quarterbacks into top-10, bottom-10, and middle-10, he'd be among the middle-10. That's not spectacular. But you can win a Super Bowl with that, as long as you're very strong at the non-quarterback positions. Unfortunately, the Bills have key weaknesses on the offensive line, defensive secondary, and coaching staff. In the presence of those weaknesses, it will be very difficult for the team to compensate for the fact that Orton isn't a franchise QB. Don't get me wrong: this team will get its share of regular season victories. But if it makes it to the postseason, it will be exposed by someone better.

> I have said repeatedly he didn't call a great game against the Patriots.... but I don't think that is because he didn't blitz every 3rd down On this we agree. (More below.) > nor do I think it undermines what has been a very solid first (almost) half a season in the DC role. The litmus test for this defense isn't how it looks against struggling offenses, such as the Dolphins or Lions or Vikings. Its litmus test is how it looks against teams with good passing attacks, like the Chargers or the Patriots. The Bills' defense hasn't faced many offenses like that thus far this season. The (relatively rare) games against teams with good passing offenses constitute far more meaningful indicators of where this defense stands than do games against the likes of Tannehill. The fact the defense--including the defensive coaching staff--did poorly against the Patriots doesn't mean we should expect equally poor performance every time we face a good passing offense. We haven't yet faced enough good passing offenses to know what kind of pattern to expect from Schwartz. During the Patriots-Giants Super Bowls, the Giants revealed a very good method of stopping Brady and the Patriots' passing attack. They'd rush three guys, while dropping eight back into coverage. Those guys would play tight coverage. It's not like they were denying Brady the 20 yard route while letting him have the five yard route. No. They were denying him the 20 yard route and the five yard route. A defense like that was akin to throwing a thick, soaking wet blanket over a campfire. It smothered the Patriots' offense. Against the Patriots, the Bills defense wasn't like that at all. There wasn't much blitzing, so in that sense the philosophy was similar to that employed by the Giants. But the Bills' defenders were handing out larger cushions than a Brobdingnagian sofa factory. If you only rush three or four guys, and make little effort to deny the offense shorter passing opportunities, you basically have a prevent defense. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any defense which would be worse to use against the Patriots than that.

> In terms of passing yards per attempt given up we are 19th. Passing yards per attempt is the right stat to use. 19th place is a little below average. Pass defense is about three to four times as important as run defense. (By this I mean that according to a regression analysis by the New York Times, a 1 SD improvement in pass defense will produce three to four times as large an improvement in winning percentage as would a 1 SD improvement in run defense.) I agree that blitzing more on passing downs isn't always the answer. Brady thrives on getting rid of the ball quickly. First and foremost, the defense needs to take away his ability to go to his quick reads, even if it means dropping seven or eight guys into coverage. I agree with you that the key to stopping the Patriots' offensive juggernaut is to confuse Brady and take away his targets. That was Schwartz's job--a job at which he utterly failed in the second half of the Patriots game. Schwartz needs to do a much, much better job than that against other good passing teams. Otherwise, this defense will be like the Gregggg Williams/Jerry Gray defense we once had: awesome at beating up weak offenses, but relatively worthless against teams like the Patriots.

The Bills have had one franchise QB since the team was created: Jim Kelly. That's comparable to other AFC East teams: Patriots: 1.5 (Brady, and the first half of Bledsoe's career) Dolphins: 2 Jets: 1 (Namath) Those franchise QBs account for all the AFC East's Super Bowl wins, and nearly all its Super Bowl appearances. Having a Jim Kelly or a Dan Marino fundamentally changes the equation for your team. The Bills don't have that at the moment. What they have is Kyle Orton. Orton is currently ranked 16th best in terms of air yards per attempt. Solid quarterback play yes, but not as solid as a franchise QB would have provided. For the early part of Favre's career, his main target was Sterling Sharpe. Sharpe was considered to be in the same general category as Michael Irvin, Andre Reed, or Jerry Rice. Then Sharpe went down with a career-ending injury. You'd think Favre's yardage totals would have taken a beating. But no. If anything, he may have actually increased his passing yardage after he lost Sharpe. An elite quarterback is far more important than an elite WR. The question is whether any QBs in the 2014 or 2015 draft would have provided a significant long-term upgrade over what Kyle Orton has to offer. I don't know enough about college football to be able to answer that question. If by drafting Watkins the Bills lost out on their chance to take the second franchise quarterback in team history, the trade was a mistake. But if none of the QBs available to them would have been much better than Orton, then it was a good move. A team should have star players--elite playmakers--and Watkins is certainly that.

> Fully and carefully scout the QBs in a Pro Style Offense ONLY, and do all your homework on JUST those QBs, no one else. That's a tempting idea. The three traits the Bills should look for in a QB are these: - accuracy - the ability to rapidly process large amounts of information - passion for the game In addition to the above, he needs to avoid deal-breakers in other areas. This means he needs to have a credible set of physical tools, no history of serious off-field issues, etc. Stuff like this does not determine his upside. His upside is determined primarily by the three factors listed above.

Some might see it that way. Others would argue that the Rams going to LA would be a case of putting the team back where it belongs, after it had been out of place for a while. Could be argued either way.

> Peyton will always have the era factor as an asterisk next to his numbers but when its all said and done he will have > thrown for twice as many TD passes as Montana and probably hold every other record. Over the course of his career, Peyton Manning has averaged 7.7 yards per attempt, compared to 7.4 for Tom Brady. So you have to give Manning a slight edge there. Montana averaged 7.5 yards per attempt. There will be those who argue that Montana's 7.5 is better than Manning's 7.7, because Montana played in an earlier, less passing-friendly era. I'm not entirely sure I agree with that argument, but it will be made. Compare all this to Johnny Unitas, who averaged 7.8 yards per attempt playing in an earlier era than Montana. Unitas also has about as many career passing yards as Montana, despite the fact that Unitas played only in 12 and 14 game seasons, in an era when passing was less common than it later became. Montana played in 16 game seasons. There was more passing in the '80s and early '90s (when Montana was playing) than there had been in the '50s, '60s, and early '70s (Unitas' years). Unitas was an extremely impressive quarterback, and may have been better than either Montana or Manning.

> Recall the NYT article linked way above, where a couple of members of the NFL Competition Committee did in fact anonymously > call out the Pats* as the team brought before them for suspected shenanigans over and over I do recall that article. My sense is that owners are far more comfortable about being candid about such matters behind closed doors than out in the open. Especially if the allegations have not yet been proved. On another matter, one of my friends mentioned that his uncle had been pulled over for speeding. (This was down in Florida.) The uncle handed the officer his license. As well as a $20 bill folded up behind the license, out of view of the police car's camera. The officer took the $20 and let the uncle off with a warning. When I was listening to a sports radio show, one of the guests (a reporter) mentioned that each Christmas, he received a present from Jerry Jones. I don't remember what the present was, but it sounded like it probably cost about $100. The reporter had apparently been on Jones' Christmas list for years. He said that he was reluctant to say or write anything negative about Jones, because he looked forward to his present every year, and didn't want to be removed from the Christmas list. Suppose someone were to approach every head official in the NFL; and were to offer each one an annual cash gift of $25,000 on behalf of a specific team. I'm sure a certain percentage of head officials would refuse this gift. But I'm also sure a percentage would accept. The question then becomes: what happens if or when an official refuses the gift, and reports the offer to higher authorities? Does the team responsible for making the offer in the first place get into any kind of trouble? In order for the team to get into trouble, I think you'd have to prove that there was a connection between the person offering the money and the team. For example, suppose that Bill Gates was a passionate Seahawks fan, and offered cash gifts to head officials. (I don't think he'd actually do this, but suppose for the sake of argument that he did.) The Seahawks could argue that this was done without their knowledge or consent. They would argue that they cannot be held accountable for actions of a wealthy fan, acting independently. I'm not saying that any Patriots-friendly bribes to officials were in fact delivered by wealthy fans acting independently of the organization. What I am saying is that if Bob Kraft decided to start bribing officials, he wouldn't necessarily do so in his own person. He might choose to send a relatively anonymous third party. Unless that third party talked, all that could be proven would be that someone, acting on the Patriots' behalf, had unsuccessfully attempted to bribe an official. It wouldn't be known whether this person was a wealthy Patriots fan acting independently, or someone paid to act on Kraft's behalf. Am I certain that any of this happened? No. I'm certain of the things I see with my own two eyes, such as a pro-Patriots bias in officiating. I don't claim to know why this bias occurred, because that's not something I can see with my own two eyes. All we have is speculation. That said, the above speculation is consistent with the pattern of Patriots behavior described in the New York Times article. When a possible hypothesis is consistent with an observed data pattern, waving away that hypothesis away as some sort of "conspiracy theory" doesn't make sense. Especially not when those doing the waving are themselves engaging in unsupported speculation to create a different explanation of the observed phenomenon. They have no evidence with which to support their claims. What they do have is a strongly held belief that theirs should be considered the default explanation; and that alternatives to that default should be considered only under the most extreme of circumstances. I reject their notion of a default explanation. People should not begin assigning probabilities to events in the absence of evidence.

Good post. Just to add to what you've written: a lot of times, offensive success in football is about creating space. Back in the '90s, the Cowboys would line their offensive linemen up relatively far apart, so that Emmit Smith would have more space in which to run. Lots of times, Hackett will run Spiller up the middle, on plays that don't appear to have been designed to create any space. The hope seems to be that the Bills' offensive line will simply overpower the other team's DL. And that Spiller will use his raw power to muscle his way up the middle for a tough four or five yards. These hopes do not appear to be based on a realistic assessment of what the Bills actually have. > They increasingly play 2-3 TE sets. After Gailey was fired, I'd wanted the Bills to hire Chip Kelly. I loved the fact that he was a very smart, creative, outside-the-box thinker. The idea isn't to think outside the box for the sake of being outside the box. The idea is to find the most rigorous solution--a solution which will sometimes exist outside the box. Chip Kelly believes that more offensive targets are better than fewer. Having more targets helps you spread the defense out, and take advantage of more of the available space on the field. You also reduce the defensive coordinator's opportunities to be flexible and unpredictable; because each of those targets dictates the location of one of his defenders. (Thereby constraining his freedom of action.) When Marrone was hired, people here tried to cheer me up. To convince me he was better than Chip Kelly would have been. But based on Hackett's play calling, I'm not sure I agree. Nor has the offensive line progressed under Marrone's tutelage, despite his pedigree as an offensive lineman.

> Anyone who has an ounce of objectivity who watched that game (fan of the home team or not) recognizes that the superior team and the better coached team won the game on its own merits. The Patriots would have won even with neutral officiating. But this isn't a discussion about which team won, nor about which team played better. It is a discussion about the impartiality of the officiating. Comments about the relative quality of the teams' play are not relevant. > Are you aware that you are giving an opinion and not basing it on objective data? If by "objective data" you mean quantitative data, then I agree that the above is an accurate description of what I've done. Just as it's an equally accurate description of what you've done. In the absence of sufficient data with which to perform a rigorous analysis, I'm not sure how either of us could do better. > However, it has nothing to do with the nonexistent bias that bothers you so much as it has to do with the league mandated "emphasis" on minimal impeding, especially with the focus on the defense. The officials were clearly enforcing the above-described new mandate against the Bills. I saw nothing which would suggest either a) that they were enforcing it against the Patriots, or b) that the Patriots were complying with the mandate. After one play, Barber described himself as a defensive back, and said that as such he didn't like to label anything as pass interference. But he went on to say that the mugging a Patriots' DB had just delivered to one of the Bills' receivers was pass interference. A non-call against the Patriots. Given that Barber has no connections to Buffalo or the Bills, it's not like you can dismiss his comments as sour grapes from a few fringe element Bills fans. (Even though such a dismissal is evidently something you'd very much like to do.) Your mind was made up long, long before you even watched the Bills-Patriots game. Nor am I going to convince you with evidence, because your original opinion wasn't based on evidence. It's based on your worldview that anyone who complains about the officiating is a loser making excuses. Anyone with a worldview like that isn't going to examine the evidence before drawing his conclusions. I can't argue you out of your strongly held ideological belief about this particular matter. This will most likely be my last response to you in this thread. There are other subjects you and I can profitably discuss, but I think this particular conversation topic has run dry. (Though I invite you to have the last word, if you so choose.) If you see me as a heavily biased, fringe element fan desperately clinging to any excuse at all to explain away his team's losing ways, I can live with that. I won't even take it personally. There are doubtless many here who do meet that description, and you don't know me well enough to discern the differences in motives and personality between me and them.

Personally, I think Johnny Unitas was the best quarterback ever. Joe Montana and Steve Young are among the top five. Sid Luckman had this to say about Unitas, "He was better than me, better than Sammy Baugh, better than anyone." In 2004, The Sporting News named Unitas the best quarterback ever, with Joe Montana number two. He set a record by having four consecutive games with a 120 passer rating or better. Kurt Warner would later tie this record. While I'm not a fan of the passer rating stat in general, I see this as a very impressive achievement. Quarterbacks from Unitas' era had absolutely no business competing against modern era quarterbacks in terms of passer rating stats. But apparently someone forgot to mention that to Johnny Unitas. Due to injuries to his elbow and fingers, he was had little or no use of his right hand after retirement. He was also unable to run after retirement, because he had artificial knees. After Irsay moved the Colts to Indianapolis, Unitas broke all contact with the team. He repeatedly instructed the Pro Football Hall of Fame to remove his memorabilia from display, unless he was listed as a member of the Baltimore Colts. (The Hall of Fame ignored those instructions.) As for which QB is the best from the current era, right now it comes down to a discussion between Peyton Manning, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, and Drew Brees. Of those, I think Rodgers might be the most underrated. I'm not saying he's the best of the four--just the most underrated of the four. I think at least one of those guys belongs in the list of top five QBs all time. On the other hand, an argument could be made that there are non-modern QBs--such as Staubach--who also belong on that top five list.

If one of the Jets touches Boobie without permission, can he sue for sexual harassment?

As a Bills fan, it's been a very, very long time since I've seen something like that final Bills' drive. Orton was definitely clutch. If only Hackett could call plays like that more often, and if only the offensive line could be reasonably functional (as it was during that drive), we'd have the makings of a real offense!

> If an owner made the explosive charge that there was biased officiating favoring a particular team it would come out in the public. I tend to divide information into two categories. 1) Information you know you have, because it's based on firsthand observation. 2) Information you think you have, because it's based on secondhand statements combined with speculation or inferences. I tend to put far more faith in the former than the latter. In this case, what we see when we watch games with our own eyes represents information we know we have. Granted, we also know that no owners have publicly complained about systematic officiating bias. One possible explanation for the latter is that NFL teams employ people who look for evidence of systematic bias and failed to find any. (Thus giving NFL owners nothing about which to publicly complain.) But a conclusion like that involves a lot of inference and supposition about things we can't see. I have no way of knowing how much faith I can reasonably place in that inference and supposition. Anything happening behind the scenes is very much like a black box. My tendency is to ignore the black box, and focus on the data I do have. In this case, the main source of data is NFL game footage. > Maybe the Pats get better calls because they have better players and coaching. In the Bills' Patriots game, I saw Bills players get called for some extremely ticky-tack, dubious penalties. I also saw Patriots players get away with flagrant violations right under the noses of the refs. I did not see the Patriots get called for ticky-tack, dubious penalties, nor Bills players getting away with flagrant violations under the noses of the refs. The officiating clearly benefited one team over the other, at least in that particular game. If this was due merely to random chance, you'd expect to see the Patriots victimized by this kind of officiating effort about as often as they're helped by it. If this was the result of refs giving calls to good teams more than bad ones, you'd expect successful teams in general to get the kinds of calls the Patriots get. When the Bills play good non-Patriots teams, the officiating is typically far more even than the officiating debacle in the recent Bills/Patriots game. Nor did it come as a shock that the Patriots just so happened to be the recipients of favorable treatment from the officials. About 12 hours before the game began, I created a thread dedicated solely to the discussion of officiating in that particular game. Not only did that game represent the most one-sided officiating performance in any Bills' game this season--and by a large margin--but that bias was predictable. It was part of a pattern. (Especially where that officiating crew is concerned.) As fans, there isn't a lot we can do to help our team. One of the things we can do is identify officiating bias when it occurs, and create public pressure for it to be addressed. It would be counterproductive for an athlete to worry about this stuff. It is not counterproductive for an entire team's fan base to worry about biased officiating. In the absence of any pressure, the NFL's instinct will be to "protect the shield," and pretend there are no major problems with officiating. But if sufficient pressure is brought to bear--from fans and others--the NFL will be forced to take actual measures to improve the impartiality and quality of officiating. We as fans should expect more than lip service or vacuous reassurances.

Bocephuz wrote > Orton is very consistent week to week.. this week was nearly a carbon copy of last week and the week before Thanks for taking the time each week to create this thread. It's something to which I always look forward. What you've written above sounds true. Orton seems like the same guy from week to week. It's not like he'll put up a dazzling performance one week and a stinker the next. You pretty much know what to expect from him going into the game. I'm glad to hear Orton committed unforced errors on only 10% of passing plays this week; as opposed to 15% from last week. Granted, there's a strong chance that's due to random statistical fluctuation. But it could also be a result of him becoming more comfortable in Hackett's offense, and more familiar with the Bills' WRs. > The O Line was worse than last week in pass protect. 28% of pass plays were lost right off the bat because Orton didn't have even a moment to throw after completing his drop back. But there are also "gray area" plays. Plays in which the offensive line blocked well enough to give Orton a moment to look downfield. But not as well as it should have. For example, suppose the defense sends just a three man rush; while sending eight guys into coverage. The QB is supposed to have a long time to throw on plays like that, due to the lack of pass rushers. On the other hand, the secondary is supposed to be able to keep guys covered for a long time, due to having all those guys in pass coverage. If the offensive line were to break down rather quickly on a play like that--as it's been known to do--Orton would still have had his "moment to throw," thus preventing that from counting as part of the 28%. But poor performance from the OL would nonetheless have ruined the play. I know you've acknowledged my point already. I just want the people reading this thread to realize--if they don't already--that our offensive line is bad. Worse than that 28% figure may make it seem.

The vast, vast majority of Manuel's passes have been checkdowns. On the other hand, it's clear Orton is more willing/able to go through his reads, and exploit a much wider range of opportunities. Below are the some of the best, most meaningful stats for both QBs this season: Yards per attempt (Manuel): 6.4 Yards per attempt (Orton): 7.2 To put those numbers into perspective, Trent Edwards averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career; and Losman averaged 6.6. Fitzpatrick typically averaged 6.8 while with Buffalo. Tom Brady has a career average of 7.4; and Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6. The difference between these two QBs' yards per attempt stats is very substantial. It becomes even more substantial when you throw away yards after the catch (YAC), and look only at air yards per attempt. In 2014, Manuel averaged 2.13 air yards per attempt--the worst average in the NFL. (Click on this link, then sort by air yards per attempt.) The next-worst QB--Geno Smith--is averaging 2.74 air yards per attempt. That's 28% more air yards per attempt than Manuel. Peyton Manning is averaging 4.96 air yards per attempt--well over double Manuel's average. Kyle Orton is averaging 3.86 air yards per attempt. If you assign Manuel's air yards per attempt a value of 0 on a scale of 0 - 100, and assign Manning's air yards per attempt a value of 100 on that same scale, Kyle Orton's value on that same scale would be 61. Put another way, the numbers indicate that Orton is playing slightly better than someone who was halfway between Manuel and Manning would play. That conclusion seems about right, given what I've seen on the field.

> If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises. One time, Ralph Wilson pointed out that the officiating in a game (I think against the Patriots) had been terrible. Because he made that statement publicly, he was fined. (Just as all NFL employees or owners who criticize the officiating are fined.) His response to the fine was to write a public letter putting the then-NFL commissioner in his place. The fine was rescinded. While that situation worked out well in terms of letting Wilson criticize the officiating without getting fined, it doesn't seem to have resulted in less biased officiating. > If there was a hint of referee bias against their respective teams the issue would be brought up by the victimized franchises. Maybe that issue is being brought up behind closed doors. It isn't being brought up publicly, both because of the fines for criticizing officiating, and because this type of allegation is very difficult to prove. If (for example) a judge of a beauty contest had been given an untraceable cash bribe, proving bias would be very hard due to the subjective nature of judging beauty. A number of NFL officiating also involve a strong subjective element. > What they can't do is offer a scintilla of evidence that their proposition has a penny's worth of credibility. On the contrary: it's indisputable that the Patriots have been recipients of very favorable officiating over the years. The most recent Bills/Patriots game is part of that larger pattern. There are different possible reasons as to why that pattern exists. Maybe it's random chance. Maybe it's NFL officials holding Bill Belichick in higher personal regard than most other NFL coaches; and not wanting to offend him. It's also possible the Patriots took a more active role in engineering this officiating bias. > Winners win and shameless losers desperately search for excuses. How pathetic can you get? This again. By using labels from the above, you are withholding permission from yourself to examine the evidence with an unbiased eye. Anyone who watches a Patriots game and sees evidence of bias is (in your view) a "shameless loser desperately [searching] for excuses." Not wanting to be a shameless loser desperately searching for excuses yourself, you go into this discussion with a mind completely closed to even the possibility that the Patriots may, in fact, be recipients of officiating bias. By making this discussion a verdict on the type of person you are, you make any conclusion other than the one you've embraced a direct, existential threat to your own self-image. No one can impartially examine evidence in the presence of that kind of threat to his self-image. That being said, your approach is the correct one to take if you're an athlete competing for an event. Someone in that position needs to gear himself up to take as much pain as possible. To compete as hard as possible. To avoid all excuses whatsoever. To believe that victory can be attained if only he pushes himself hard enough. A true competitive athlete should be fanatically focused on the things he can control, and on those things only. If he began worrying about officiating bias, it would mess with his head, and disrupt his focus. Someone like that needs to believe your quote--whether it's true or false--because that's the kind of belief that will maximize his athletic performance. But unless the conversation is about stadium attendance or stadium noise levels, any discussion we as fans have is going to be about something we can't control. I have no more ability to influence the Bills' draft selections or free agent signings than I have to influence the quality or impartiality of the officiating. I don't need to worry about MattM's perspective disrupting my focus as a fan. I can afford to give an unbiased look at the evidence. (As opposed to the highly competitive athlete, who must dismiss anything from his mind which might interfere with his focus.)

Wrong on both counts. In college, Manuel almost always threw to his first read or took the checkdown option. As for Manuel's college coach, reports from multiple sources indicate the coach had warned NFL teams that Manuel might not be worth more than a third or fourth round pick. Fisher publicly refuted these rumors, claiming that the only NFL representative with whom he'd spoken about Manuel was Buddy Nix. Anyone who wants to believe Fisher's story in its entirety has to believe that of the several teams which showed interest in Manuel, only one bothered to ask his college coach about him. Anyone who doesn't believe that has to believe that at least a portion of Fisher's public statement was a deliberate fabrication. In which case, his public statement in its entirety would lack credibility. It may be in Fisher's interest to give honest (or at least somewhat honest) appraisals of his players to NFL teams. If he develops a reputation of over-hyping his players, then after a while teams will stop listening to him. But it's probably not in his interests for high school prospects to realize this is what he's doing. That he's willing to say things which would prevent some of his players from getting over-drafted. (Thereby potentially costing these players millions of dollars on their rookie deals.) It may well be that Fisher has adopted a strategy of privately giving teams a somewhat accurate picture of players like Manuel, while publicly proclaiming he'd had nothing but good things to say about such players.

> There was not one player from that 2000 draft who had any value to the Bills. Granted. On the other hand, their first pick of that draft was Erik Flowers, and he wasn't chosen until the mid 20s. Spiller was taken 9th overall. According to the value chart, the pick used on Spiller was worth about double the pick used on Flowers. If I spend $3000 on a used car, and have to sell it for scrap a few weeks later, that's bad. But if I'd spent $6000 on a different car and had to scrap it, that's twice as bad! Even if I got a few weeks of driving out of that $6000 car before it went to the scrap heap, it's still a worse mistake than the $3000 vehicle.

The Jets have an opportunity to hide their weak secondary with a strong pass rush. If they have high school level talent on their DL, they should be able to manage some pressures and an occasional sack. If they have college level talent on that DL, they should be disappointed with anything less than a five sack performance. Maybe the above comments are hyperbole. But they're not nearly as hyperbolic as you might think! The offensive line's performance against the Vikings was absolutely pathetic. But I guess the line was due for a letdown, after their horse manure performance against the Patriots, and their fourth rate accomplishments against Detroit. Or the way they got manhandled against Houston for that matter. I really, really, really hate to say this, but I think this line may actually miss Chris Williams. Was he great? No. Was he even a vaguely credible starter? Not really. But could he be relied on to slow defenders down a little on their way to the quarterback--at least from time to time? Yes. And that makes him a dramatic improvement over what I watched earlier today.

He had some inaccurate throws. The INT was on him; and he should have done more to avoid the fumble. I agree there was room for improvement. On the other hand, there were some nice plays too, even before the final drive. He finished with 283 yards and 2 TDs. (But a mediocre 6.6 yards per attempt.) On the other hand, he got no pass protection the whole game, except for that final drive. Also, the coaching was less than stellar. I remember one drive, in which the Bills ran it up the middle on first down for a 2 yard gain. Then they ran it up the middle on 2nd down for another 2 yard gain. It was then up to Orton to bail them out on 3rd and 6. The pass protection broke down almost immediately--what else is new--so he had to get rid of it quickly. He threw a 5 yard pass to Chandler; hoping he'd be able to lunge forward for that last yard. He couldn't, so the Bills had to punt. One of the reasons that last drive was so effective was because Hackett no longer had the option of calling run, run, pass. If Hackett engaged in "last drive" type playcalling all game long, and if the offensive line blocked the whole game like it did on the last drive, we'd have a real offense.

> The referee explanation is a reflection of a loser mentality. I categorically disregard the above argument. People's empirical views should be based only on the search for truth. The proposition that the Patriots are favored by the refs is either empirically true or false. If true, it should be accepted, just as all empirically accurate statements should be accepted. If false, it should be rejected. Not because it's the sign of a so-called "loser mentality," but because all empirically false propositions should be rejected. > There are also games that calls lean against the same team. You have already stated that anyone who sees pro-Patriots officiating bias has adopted a "loser mentality." In order to avoid meeting your own definition of a "loser mentality," you are required to assume that apparent officiating bias evens out over time. There isn't any empirical evidence which would suggest officiating bias has evened out over time for the Patriots. But you, personally, have to believe that's true anyway. Your only other option is to adopt something you've labeled a "loser mentality." It is possible to critically examine the available evidence with an open mind. Or, it is possible to use emotionally charged labels to close your own (and others') minds to a specific possibility before that critical examination has even begun. These two options are mutually exclusive. The selection of one constitutes the rejection of the other.

> If what Alphadog says is true -- that teams don't pay attention to collective passer rating stats -- then there a lot of dumb teams out there. Prediction and measurement are two different things. Meaning, that the stat you described may be relatively good at predicting a team's success. But that does not necessarily mean it measures individual players' contribution to that success. For example, I agree that sacks are bad, and that any conglomerate measure which takes them into account will yield a higher r^2 (if winning is the dependent variable) than would have been the case had sacks not been included as one of the independent variables. But while all of that is true, it doesn't tell you whether those sacks should be blamed on the QB, the offensive line, or (in some cases) are coverage sacks blameable on the WRs. If the stat you've described is being used as a tool to measure quarterbacks' performance, the underlying assumption is that quarterbacks are completely to blame for the sacks they take. An assumption like that isn't even accurate of Rob Johnson. (Mostly because Johnson played behind a terrible OL, and many of the sacks he took were the line's fault. But given that Rob Johnson's sack percentage was twice as high as any other QB in NFL history, there was plenty of blame to go around.) My preference is typically for "one ingredient" stats over conglomerate stats. Don't tell me what a QB's collective passer rating is. Tell me his air yards per attempt, his YAC yards per attempt, his INT percentage, his sack percentage, etc. Give me the individual ingredients one by one, and let me put together my own analysis of what he is or isn't accomplishing. The more "one ingredient" stats you give me, the more complete the picture will be. When you combine a rigorous statistical analysis like that with the eyeball test, you can form a fairly complete picture of a QB's level of play.

> But hey, how about that Mike Glennon? Montana can't hold his jock. Until you can quantify both Glennon's and Montana's air yards per attempt, there's no way for you (or any of the rest of us) to know if the above statement is true. Even the quarterbacks who have the highest percentage of air yards to total passing yards still got 33% of their passing yards from YAC. I'll grant it's possible that Montana got more than 33% of his passing yards from YAC. But for him to have been among the most YAC-intensive QBs of the game, he'd have to have gotten about 67% of his total passing yards from YAC. I don't see how it's possible for someone--without looking at any data--to be certain his YAC percentage was closer to 67% than to 33%. > Stop harping on "mental bandwidth" or the "ability to process lots of information quickly" The Bills front office didn't harp on mental bandwidth when they took Losman. Nor (as best I can tell) did they look for on-field evidence of the ability to process lots of information quickly when they drafted Manuel. How did that work out for them? The prototypical example of a first round bust is a guy with great physical tools, with good passing statistics in college, but who's considered "raw" A "project." Whereas, most successful first round quarterbacks are considered "polished pocket passers" at the college level. "NFL-ready." There are plenty of NFL front offices who think the way you do. (Or else those prototypical first round busts wouldn't have been drafted in the first round to begin with.) But those front offices are wrong. If I sense the Bills have a front office like that--which they do--my hope is for them to be replaced. The front office which chose Manuel should not be given the opportunity to choose his replacement. If, as paid professionals, they're not smart enough to see things that I as a casual fan can see, they do not constitute the long-term answer to the Bills' problems. > Maybe you could try appreciating YAC as an attribute of a good receiver rather than an indictment of the QB for a change. The main question about YAC is whether credit for it should be attributed to the quarterback or the WR. If the QB hits a moving target in perfect stride, thereby setting him up for really good YAC, then some or all the credit for that play's YAC belongs to the QB. If on the other hand the QB throws the ball to a stationary target, the QB doesn't deserve credit for the YAC. Suppose you were to give all quarterbacks full credit for their air yards. But only credited them with YAC yards on plays when they hit a moving target in perfect stride. At the end of the day, a guy like Joe Montana would receive credit for a much greater proportion of his team's YAC yards than a typical QB would receive. This would accurately reflect the fact that Montana did much more to help create YAC yards than most QBs do. Unfortunately, data like the above are not readily available. But if you see that a particular quarterback very rarely his receivers in perfect stride, there's no reason to worry about how that quarterback might have fared in the above-described analysis. Instead, you throw away the YAC yards--those are the receivers' doing, at least in this case--and look only at his air yards per attempt. By comparing this quarterback's air yards per attempt stat against that of other QBs around the league, you'll have a reasonably accurate gauge of his true contributions to the team. This is why Manuel's air yards per attempt is far more reflective of his actual performance than his yards per attempt.

> If you insist on using this stat to make some salient point about QB play, then Joe Montana is one of the worst QBs in history. Please provide a link to a site indicating Montana's career air yards per attempt. > That's the point and the reason the stat is useless to anyone that's honest about evaluating stats in general and QBs in particular. It's possible to poke holes in any statistical measure, including your favorite: yards per attempt. For example: John Elway career YPA: 7.1 Jay Cutler career YPA: 7.2 Rob Johnson career YPA: 7.2 Any of the tools we're discussing are subject to distortion. Statistical distortion over the course of an entire career (as above) is harder to explain away than a few games' worth (the Mike Glennon example). The Rob Johnson/John Elway example isn't the only case in which YPA would have led to incorrect conclusions about the quality of QB play. ************* One quarterback led his team to a 12-4 regular season record after starting slow at 3-3. He won the Associated Press's MVP award. Another quarterback was replaced due to ineffectiveness early in the season by an aging journeyman best known for headbutting a stadium wall. Which one would you want on your team? You wouldn't be able to tell from their official stats. Although one didn't play the entire season, both passers had nearly identical "per attempt stats." The first QB threw for 7.2 yards per attempt and the second QB threw for 7.1. They both had a 95 NFL passer rating. Actually, Tavaris Jackson's was 95.4 and Peyton Manning's was 95. But then again, I might be able to approach a 95 rating if I were throwing dump-offs to Adrian Peterson. ************ From the same article: **************** Here are the QBs from 2007 who led the league in percent of their passing yardage as YAC: Croyle, Testaverde, Greise, Harrington, Favre, McCown, Losman, and Lemon. . . . There's isn't a single guy on that list who we can call a legitimate starter. [This was written long, long after Favre had been in his prime.] The 2008 season's list of leaders in %YAC include Cassel, O'Sullivan, Campbell, Favre (again), Losman, and Wallace. But Matt Cassel is good, right? Maybe not. **************** The air yards per attempt/YAC yards proved to be a more accurate indication of Cassel's future career trajectory than did the high regard in which he was generally held.