Orton's Arm

> Marv was wrong to pick him at 8 Fixed!

Great post!

You are right: the second chart is the correct one to use. I noticed that Whitner was neither on the chart for the ten worst pass coverage safeties, nor the list of the ten best safeties. However, the lists in question lump strong and free safeties together. The league has only 32 starting strong safeties, but 64 starting safeties (free and strong lumped together). The lists inform us that, among those 64 starting safeties, there are at least 10 guys worse than he is in pass coverage. But if you were to look just at the 32 starting strong safeties, could you find at least 10 other guys worse than Whitner in pass coverage? This brings me back to the subject of the first list. Yes, I realize that the first list is flawed, because it artificially punishes guys who were on the field a lot. But even after making allowances for that, one still has to consider that according to that admittedly flawed list, Whitner was among the ten worst safeties (out of 64) in pass coverage. If a flawed method puts him among the bottom ten among the 64 safeties, it's quite possible--even probable--that a non-flawed method would put him among the bottom-ten among the 32 strong safeties. Yes, the first list punishes guys for getting excessive amounts of playing time. If Whitner was getting significantly more playing time than most other SSs around the league, then perhaps his presence on the first list could be explained away on that basis. It seems very unlikely that Whitner is getting significantly more playing time than most other starting SSs. Whitner's presence on that first list should help shatter the myth that he got to the Pro Bowl by playing at (or anywhere near) a Pro Bowl level; or that he's anything other than a liability in pass coverage.

I partially agree and partially disagree with what you've written. In terms of the respective values of their careers, I see the following: Kyle Williams > Marshawn Lynch Donte Whitner < Poz 2006 draft = 2007 draft. From the standpoint of talent selection, neither draft had anything about which to get excited at all. (Except for the Kyle Williams pick.) As for Marshawn Lynch: remember that while he was with the Bills, Fred Jackson significantly outplayed him. Part of that is a credit to Fred. But part of that is because Lynch's play with the Bills wasn't what one would hope for from the 12th overall pick. Lynch's disappointing play--in combination with the fact that he plays a position Marv should not have been using first round picks on in the first place--makes him almost as disappointing as the Whitner selection. (At least from the Bills' perspective.) I'll grant that, of the two players, Lynch has produced the better post-Bills play.

> I think you are overestimating the going rate for 2nd hand RB's - it's not high. Very few RB's are even taken in the first round > anymore, and they have the shortest careers in the NFL - a 4th and a 6th is really not an insult at all. For the sake of argument, let's say you're right. (As is probably the case anyway.) RBs have short careers, so it's unrealistic for a team trading away a used RB to expect to get anywhere near the compensation that the Broncos got for trading away Cutler. That being the case, why on Earth would the GM of a rebuilding team use the 12th overall pick on a RB with short-term value only? Why not take a player at some other position instead? Even if Lynch had been the best available player when the Bills picked--which he wasn't--the short-term-value-only nature of the RB position should have influenced Marv to go in a different direction. Unfortunately, Marv's entire tenure as GM was characterized by shortsightedness. He was fond of quoting the saying that if you build for the future, you're building for someone else's future. That wasn't just talk: like TD before him, he consistently sought out quick fixes; and lacked any viable long-term plan whatever.

> You're basing your entire argument on the faulty premise that not keeping players somehow makes them a bad draft pick, when its an entirely separate issue. When a player hits free agency, or is traded, in the prime of his career, it's a chance for the GMs around the league to collectively render a verdict on the player. When Antoine Winfield hit free agency, he was highly sought after by teams like the Jets and Vikings, and was richly rewarded with a big contract. This correctly reflected the fact that he was among the best DBs in the league. When Whitner hit free agency, other teams' interest in him was tepid; and he was ultimately signed to a below-average contract. This correctly reflected the fact that he was a below-average SS. Likewise, the fact that the Bills could only get a 4th + 6th for Lynch correctly reflected the fact that up to that point, the quality of his play did not justify a particularly high price in draft picks. The actions of GMs around the league inform us that, during their time with the Bills, Whitner and Lynch performed below the expectations associated with second round picks. Lynch has had one (not two) very good years since leaving Buffalo. Whitner's post-Buffalo play has not been much different than we'd seen in Buffalo.

The Bills have a lack of players at premium positions. The most glaring example of that is at quarterback, where we have nobody. But there may not be any QBs worth taking in the top 15. If that's true, the Bills should look at players at other premium positions. A non-pass rushing LB is about as far away from a premium position as you can get. So stop ogling Ogletree! Turning Glenn into a guard is foolish, because you're taking a good answer at a premium position (Glenn) and trying to turn him into an answer at a non-premium position. An elite pass rusher would be a perfectly acceptable use of a top 10 pick. So too would an elite CB--at least assuming we stop this nonsense of allowing our best DBs to go first-contract-and-out! I would also be okay with the Bills using that pick on a NT--assuming he turns into a Ted Washington of a NT: the kind of guy who can eat up two offensive linemen at once. I would also be okay with using the pick on an elite WR. Normally I'd also accept using it on a LT; but we already have a good one in Glenn. It's a mistake to use such an early pick on a RT or an interior OL. The Bills have too many other needs to indulge in the luxury of using a top 10 pick on a player at a non-premium position.

In 2006, the Bills had the 8th overall pick; which they used on Donte Whitner. Several years later, Whitner hit free agency in the prime of his career. This was a chance for general managers around the league to evaluate his play, and to offer him a salary consistent with what he'd proven over the past few years. He was offered the kind of salary normally associated with a quality backup SS, or else with a below-average starter. And it's not like he's become a whole new player after switching teams. His admission to the Pro Bowl was based more on name recognition and on a few highlight reel hits than on him suddenly starting to play at a Pro Bowl level. In 2007, the Bills had the 12th overall pick. They used it on Marshawn Lynch, who was traded for a 4th + 6th rounder just a few years later. I don't think it's unrealistic to expect a team to do more with the 12th overall pick than just that. One could make the case that the Bills got too little for Lynch in the trade, as shown by the good year Lynch just had for the Seahawks. But I'll want to see more than just one good year from him, before deciding that his level of post-Buffalo play will be consistently higher than what he brought to the Bills. As for Sammy Morris: I'd argue that he was underrated, and deserved more playing time than he received. Neither the 2006 nor 2007 drafts brought the Bills any good, long-term answers at any positions, except for Kyle Williams.

The 2007 draft also belongs in this discussion. 1 12 Marshawn Lynch, RB 2 34 Paul Posluszny, LB 3 92 Trent Edwards, QB 4 111 Dwayne Wright, RB 6 184 John Wendling, DB 7 222 Derek Schouman, FB 7 239 C.J. Ah You, DE One would expect a team to achieve more in the draft when it has the 12th overall pick--as the Bills did in 2007--than if it has the 26th overall pick. The best player from the 2000 draft was Sammy Morris; a RB who had a 12 year career, and averaged 4.1 yards per carry. The best player from the 2007 draft was Marshawn Lynch; who currently has a career average of 4.2 yards per carry. Morris was the better receiving threat. But Lynch has been given more playing time than Morris. As bad as the 2007 draft was, the 2006 draft was even worse. Or would be, if it wasn't for Kyle Williams.

*************** DALLAS—Claiming he wanted to “go get himself” a closer look at the action, Cowboys owner Jerry Jones wandered out onto the field during his team’s game against the Philadelphia Eagles Sunday, joining huddles, advising players, and berating officials. . . . Team sources confirmed that Jones first left the owner’s box and sauntered out into the field of play in the second quarter, brashly shouting encouragements during a Cowboys possession that made its way into the red zone. Jones then reportedly became increasingly involved in the course of play, pointing out potential blitzers, calling an audible for the Cowboys’ offense, and discussing a contract extension with running back DeMarco Murray during a three-yard rush up the middle. *************** For the full article, go here.

> "I'm successful so people like me will be successful" is a real subconscious bias. This is true, and goes far beyond race. It's why liberals are disproportionately likely to be selected in favor of (and conservatives selected against) for positions in the media and academia. It's why extraverts will tend to hire other extraverts; with introverts more likely to at least be open to hiring other introverts. It's my understanding that blacks are more strongly represented in NFL coaching ranks than they are in the general population. However, representation among Asians, Latinos, Indians, and women is slim to none. I think the reason we're hearing so much about getting more black representation--and nothing at all about increasing representation among these other groups--is that most players are black. The players' union is seeking to advance the interests of its primarily black male membership (by promoting the interests of black males). It is not seeking to eliminate racial or other barriers to hiring. It is simply trying to rearrange racial preferences in coaching, to make the situation less favorable for whites and more favorable for blacks, while continuing the unfavorable situation for Asians, Latinos, Indians, and women.

I'd be curious to compare the percentage of African Americans in the NFL coaching pool with the percentage in the general population. Then I'd like to see the same comparison performed again, except with Asian Americans.

Good write-up. What are your thoughts on his decision-making and ability to read defenses?

There's a chance they'll move him to safety. Maybe that will work out poorly too, but I envision them giving him at least a year at that position before giving up on him.

Buddy Nix, "Ryan, we need to sit down and have a talk. Come into my office." Ryan Fitzpatrick, "Okay." Buddy, "Ryan, we've talked about your becoming a more accurate and more consistent quarterback. We've given you a big contract, hired a new quarterback coach to teach you good mechanics." Ryan Fitzpatrick, "I'm excited by the chance to become better." Buddy, "That's all well and good, but talk is cheap. I need you to show me the baby." Nine months later . . .

I never felt the Bills should take Teo--or any other non-passrushing LB--at #8. If the Bills need linebackers, they can (and should) get them in the second round or later. If this drama causes Teo to fall to the second or third round, then--like KD said--the Bills should consider taking him there.

The Bills' lack of a quarterback is eating at me. If we obtain the heir to Jim Kelly, this team becomes a Super Bowl contender. Without a quarterback, we can be reasonably certain we will not win a Super Bowl. If the answer at QB won't be available to us in this draft, then you're right in saying we should go in a different direction. Drafting a pass rusher seems to make at least as much sense as any other "different direction" I can think of. I just want the Bills to look long and hard at the available QBs before deciding the right guy isn't there.

Very, very good post!

I disagree. Welker has two options: a) go to a team with a QB, or b) go to a team without. If he goes to a team with a QB, he has a shot at another championship. The team to which he goes will be able to obtain maximum benefit out of him, because of all the accurately thrown passes coming his way. If he goes to a team without a quarterback, it's a lose-lose. Welker doesn't get his shot at another championship. The team won't get maximum benefit out of him, because a lot of the value he could have provided will have been wasted by the QB's inaccurate passes. The Bills don't have a quarterback. They are still a rebuilding team, though the process is further along than it had been a few years ago. This just isn't a good match.

To set the right mood for the discussion, I recommend this song.

Warmack is a good player, and would be a good addition to the Bills' war machine. Even so, I'm uncomfortable with this idea on several levels. 1) In the past, I've criticized the Bills' front office for letting the Bills' best DBs go first-contract-and-out, only to use first round picks on their replacements. Letting Levitre go first-contract-and-out, and using a first round pick on his replacement, seems like more of the same--except at a different position. 2) The Bills have needs at premium positions, such as QB, DE, and (I hate to say this) CB. I'd like to see the Bills' first round pick used to obtain a very good player at a premium position--ideally quarterback. You can get really good offensive guards in the second round. Levitre himself was a second round pick. The Bills need to re-sign Levitre and Byrd--ideally well before the draft. Then at #8, they need to think long and hard about whether a guy like Glennon or Nassib can be the long-term answer at QB. The kind of guy who will play at or near a franchise level. If they feel a reasonable comfort level with a QB, they should take him at #8. Even if he's not "supposed" to be taken in the top 10. If there isn't an opportunity for the Bills to solve their QB problems in this draft, they should instead look at DEs, CBs, and perhaps WRs. Edit: I do not like the idea of taking a LB in the top-10, unless he's going to be another Bryce Paup. By that I mean a 3-4 LB who's going to be asked to rush the passer on a lot of downs. I would be comfortable using a top-10 pick on a Ted Washington type player.

I agree with your idea of opinion polls. A scale from 1 - 10 seems reasonable. As for limits on what people can write--if someone takes the time to create a long, well thought-out post, I will typically read and enjoy it. Posts like this one come to mind, and should be encouraged. Unfortunately, there are other times when the signal-to-noise ratio is low. This often happens because people get into arguments, and repeat their (unsupported) opinions as a refutation of the unsupported opinions of those they're arguing against. That being said, I agree that brevity is a virtue, and verbosity has no place on the sentiment measurement threads the OP has described. Trying to persuade others to agree with one's prediction is best left for other threads.

Fear the Losing: IDGAF what Fitz did under Gailey as Chan was a moron. Edwards' Arm: Fitz's numbers have been significantly better under Gailey than under any of his previous coaches. Fear the Losing: Who really cares if Fitz's numbers were better... HE LOST GAMES! Under Gailey, Fitz averaged 6.8 yards per attempt in 2010, and 6.7 yards per attempt in 2011 and 2012. Prior to Gailey, Fitz had never averaged more than 6.3 yards per pass attempt in a season. That's one of several reasons why I believe Gailey did a much better job of tailoring the Bills' offense to Fitz's strengths than his previous head coaches had done. > Go look over the rosters of the all the playoff teams, particularly the passing teams. Denver, Atlanta, New > England, all have 2 or more receivers in the top 25. Its a passing league, if you want to compete with the > top teams you need more then one decent receiver. No matter how much of a passing league it becomes, an average team will always have one player among the top 32 receivers, and two players in the top 64. Fitz's receiving corps was about average in that respect, which means it cannot legitimately be used as an excuse for his below-average yards per attempt numbers. > What you, and other fans fail to realize is ...you are not going to change a QB's technique and > mechanics in one season. An example is Tim Tebow who is trying to change his mechanics since > leaving college and has been constantly working to do so, and yet so far has failed. Tim Tebow is a great example of a hitherto inaccurate QB who'd become accurate after changing his mechanics. Or would be, if he'd ever become an accurate quarterback. Thus far that transformation hasn't happened. Those in the Broncos and Jets organizations apparently have little or no faith in it ever happening. In fact, I cannot think of any previously inaccurate quarterbacks who became accurate after receiving good coaching. If a QB is going to be accurate in the NFL, odds are he'll also have been accurate back in college. Even in high school, Joe Montana was known for his remarkable level of accuracy. He had a gift for throwing the ball accurately--something which can't be taught. Would that Fitz had even 30% of that gift! > When was the last time you saw the Bills O line drive anyone off the LoS on 3rd and short. The OL is better at some things than others. Driving people off the ball on third and short is one of its weaker points. > As quickly as Fitz gets that ball out he is still being hurried, harried and hit far to often. This IMO is a big reason for a lot of his so called inaccuracy. Fitz is an inconsistent, unreliable passer even when he's given plenty of time in the pocket. > Yea,OK. Name that rare opertunity the Bills should draft at QB in 2013. I haven't followed college ball closely enough to commit to one guy. That being said, Nassib and Glennon come to mind as guys worth serious consideration. That examination needs to be critical. The Bills need to avoid the error of seeing what they want to see on the one hand, or of being unduly pessimistic on the other.

> IDGAF what Fitz did under Gailey as Chan was a moron. Fitz's numbers have been significantly better under Gailey than under any of his previous coaches. Gailey did a much better job of tailoring his offense to Fitz's strengths than any of Fitz's previous coaches had. > Then the BB receivers corps blows chunks. They have ONE player in the top 25 for receiving YARDS, ONE! Your second statement does not support your first. There are 32 teams in the NFL, which means the average NFL team has 0.78 players in the top 25 for receiving yards. > The next best was ranked 77th! Scott Chandler who was injured quite a bit. A typical NFL team will have 1 player in the top 32 for receiving yards, and 2 players in the top 64. Had it not been for Chandler's injuries, my guess is he would have made the top 64. Especially if he'd had even an average QB throwing him the ball. > Second, is his ability to read the opposing defense and set O line protections accordingly. This might seem trivial to most of you . . . It does not seem trivial to me. Fitz's intelligence may well be his single best asset as a football player. However, I do not feel it's enough of an asset to compensate for his inability to throw the ball accurately. I want the Bills' QB to be smart and an accurate passer! > There were reasons that Gailey chose Fitz as his starter and kept him as his starter for 3 years. As you pointed out, Fitz's two best strengths are his football intelligence and his ability to get rid of the ball quickly. His biggest weakness is his inaccuracy. Gailey evidently thought he could design an offense which would cater to Fitz's strengths while minimizing his weaknesses. His plan was to put a lot of receiving options on the field at any one time, with the hope and expectation that one of those options would result in a mismatch. Fitz was asked to identify this mismatch immediately--or pre-snap if possible--and get the ball to the mismatched player very, very quickly. The throws themselves were not supposed to be particularly challenging to make. The kinds of throws you'd expect an average NFL backup to be able to make with a reasonable degree of consistency. This offense worked for a while. But the Bengals found answers for it, and a few games later Fitz's ribs got hurt. Even before the rib injury, it had become obvious that Gailey's experiment had a limited lifespan, and that defenses in general would soon learn what the Bengals had learned. That would have been the time for the Bills to start looking for a long-term upgrade at quarterback. But then David Lee decided he wanted a job as the Bills' QB coach, and told Gailey and Nix exactly what they wanted to hear. He apparently sold Gailey and Nix on the idea that fixing Fitz's mechanics could make him a more accurate quarterback. Had Lee been right--had Fitz been able to become a much more accurate version of himself--he could have been the successor to Jim Kelly. Gailey's and Nix's decision to put their faith into David Lee's QB coaching represented part 2 of the Fitz experiment. Unfortunately, part 2 has also proved a failure: the promised gains in accuracy failed to materialize. > So, while some of you more obtuse Bills fans are stoking the fires of your hatred for Fitz, why don't > you temper it with the understanding that Fitz just might be the answer until Marrone can build > a proper supporting cast around the QB. The Bills have a proper supporting cast. When healthy, the offensive line is good enough to please even Bill from NYC. Spiller and Jackson represent a good 1-2 punch at RB. Stevie Johnson typically gets open against even elite CBs like Revis. Chandler is a fairly decent pass catching TE. The absolute last, worst, stupidest, most obtuse thing the Bills could do would be to pass up a franchise QB in the 2013 draft to give themselves time to build up the supporting cast still more. If there's a reasonable chance of getting a franchise QB in the upcoming draft, the Bills have to either avail themselves of that chance, or resign themselves to another few years of mediocrity. Opportunities to obtain franchise QBs are very rare, and it would be the height of foolishness to pass up one such chance in the expectation of soon being granted another. Doing so would be almost as bad as tearing up a winning lottery ticket, with the thought that, "If I won once, I can always win again. So what's the big deal?"

> Passer rating is a collection of stats and Fitz is basically right in the middle of the pack at 16. Passer rating is absolutely not the stat you should use! If QB #1 is 1/2 for 10 yards, and QB #2 is 2/2 for 10 yards, QB #2 will have the higher passer rating, because he has the higher completion percentage. This artificially rewards QBs who favor short, high percentage dump-off passes. Fitz certainly falls into that category. > Fitz was better than Tannehill this year without a doubt. Actually, there is considerable doubt. Yards per attempt is a much better tool with which to evaluate QB performance than QB rating. Tannehill had a slightly higher yards per attempt this past season than Fitz. You could point out--correctly--that Fitz had the better TD/INT ratio. However, if Fitz and Tannehill had played at an exactly equal level, Fitz would have put up better stats, because his supporting cast was stronger than Tannehill's. Overall, it's far from obvious which of the two QBs had the better season. > Go watch Ponder play or Gabbert or Tannehill or Sanchez or Weeden. This past season, Fitzpatrick had the 24th-best yards per attempt in the NFL. Each of the QBs you mentioned--except for Tannehill--had a lower yards per attempt than Fitz. Fitz also finished ahead of Vick, Cassell, Foles, and Bradford. He finished behind RGIII, Peyton Manning, Newton, Russell Wilson, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Brady, Romo, Schaub, Eli Manning, Freeman, Roethlisberger, Flacco, Palmer, Cutler, Luck, Dalton, Locker, Rivers, Stafford, Tannehill, and Chad Henne.