Orton's Arm

You may be right. I hope there is a QB in the upcoming draft who can be a long term answer for the Bills. Maybe a guy like Glennon or Nassib. But even if one of those guys can come in and be the answer eventually, I think there's still a lot to be said for keeping the rookie quarterback on the bench. Let him sit and learn the offense for a year. Unless it's Nassib, in which case we don't have to worry.

Great OP! Your numbers reinforce my suspicion that the talent level on the Bills has been increasing the past few years, even if that has not yet been borne out by the win/loss record.

> You don't need stats, watch the freaking game The two aren't mutually exclusive. When I watched the game, I noticed that Fitz's throws were often inaccurate. Many of those inaccurate throws still resulted in catches, which means they didn't show up on the stats. But the stats in general--and the yards per attempt stat in particular--correctly reflects the level of performance I saw from Fitz.

You are using the wrong statistical measure. Quarterback rating is flawed because it takes completion percentage into account. If you use quarterback rating to compare a short passing game guy against someone who focused more on the deep game, the short passing game guy will look a lot better than he deserves. A good example of this is the fact that Kelly Holcomb and John Elway have almost identical career quarterback ratings. Holcomb's focus on the short passing game inflated his quarterback rating. Just as Fitz's focus on the short passing game inflated his own quarterback rating. The best single measurement of a QB's performance is yards per attempt. Yards per pass attempt is to quarterbacks what yards per rushing attempt is to RBs. Elway's career yards per pass attempt was significantly higher than Holcomb's, correctly reflecting the fact that Elway was the better of the two quarterbacks. This past season, Fitzpatrick finished 24th in yards per attempt. Based on yards per attempt, 23 other starting QBs had better 2012 seasons than Fitz. That seems about right to me.

When evaluating a QB's performance, focus mostly on one question: how well did he throw the ball? Throw in other stuff too if you will: pocket presence, on-field playcalling, etc. But don't worry about the team's overall record, don't worry about the quality of the defense, and don't worry about anything else which might distract you from paying attention to the quality of the QB's play. Based on what you've seen from Fitz these past few seasons, do you think he's good enough to be the long-term answer at starter? If not, do you like him as a backup QB, and maybe as a guy who can hold down the fort while a rookie QB sits on the bench and learns? If you answered either of these questions in the affirmative, then Fitz is worth keeping. I, personally, would not object to Fitz spending the rest of his career as the Bills' backup QB.

I like this idea! During the preseason, he'd reveal almost nothing about the Bills' defensive schemes. During the regular season, he'd reveal a little more of the mind of Monte. But he'd hold some things in reserve, in order to be prepared for the postseason. During that postseason, he would show them even more of the mind of Monte. During the Super Bowl itself, he'd show them the full Monte!

I think a very strong case could be made that Rodgers is the best QB in the NFL. Back when he led the Packers to a Super Bowl victory, I recall him having made one bad throw all game. One. To the best of my recollection, everything else he did was perfect. No one has the right to play at such an insanely high level. Not only that, but he's better at mitigating an offensive line's problems than just about any other elite QB I know. He gets rid of the ball in a hurry, moves around well, buys himself more time. It would be much harder for a defense to use a good pass rush to neutralize him than it would be for them to neutralize Manning, or even Brady. (Assuming that all three QBs played behind equally good offensive lines.)

This. 1) If you bring in an offensive or defensive coordinator, odds are he'll have no previous head coaching experience. 2) If you bring in someone with previous NFL head coaching experience, odds are you're bringing in someone who'd previously been fired from his previous job as an NFL head coach. 3) If you hire a head coach who'd retired from his previous coaching gig after having won a Super Bowl, you have to deal with the fact that no one in NFL history has ever been the head coach of two different Super Bowl champion teams. Jimmy Johnson won Super Bowls with the Cowboys, but never with the Dolphins. Bill Parcells won Super Bowls with the Giants, but never with the Jets or Patriots. Since 2001, the Bills have tried 1) on two different occasions: the Gregg_gg Williams hire, and the Mike Mularkey hire. Both hires were risks, and neither worked out. They also used method 2) on two different occasions: the Jauron hire and the Gailey hire. With hires like that, you run the risk that their previous employers knew what they were doing when they fired these guys in the first place. The more I saw of Jauron's coaching with the Bills, the more glaringly obvious it became why Chicago had fired him. In the form of Chip Kelly, the Bills have the potential to get a guy who's been successful as a head coach. Maybe not as an NFL head coach, but as a head coach nonetheless. You also have a chance to get a guy who's known for being a brilliant, outside-the-box thinker, and one of those responsible for the evolution of thinking in football. Chip Kelly seems to have roughly the same intellectual horsepower as Belichick, without necessarily having the same personality.

The mods haven't gotten around to banning you yet?

Developing a Moneyball tool for football would, as K9 has pointed out, be a difficult task. But not necessarily an impossible one. If I was tasked with developing such a system, I'd do the following: 1. Define the variable I want to maximize 2. Develop metrics to measure players' contributions to those variables. 3. Measure each current and potential player on those metrics. 4. Obtain players who provide the maximum ratio of contribution to money spent. For step 1, I think a fairly decent metric would be yards gained per play (offense) and yards yielded per play (defense). Those could be further broken down into yards/running play and yards/passing play. One could refine the above by also taking into account turnovers. Yards per passing play should be weighted three times as heavily as yards per running play or turnovers. (The number three comes from a regression analysis performed by The New York Times.) For step 2, you define each player's task on a specific play. Then you rate how well he achieved his task. A quarterback's job is to throw the ball accurately, an offensive lineman's job is to win his battle against the guy across the line from him, etc. You could rate the accuracy of each pass on a scale from 1 - 5, the quality of a QB's decision on a scale from 1 - 3, etc. You could also rate the quality of a WR's catching on a scale from 1 - 5; where a 5 counts as catching a very poorly thrown ball, a 3 counts as catching a well-thrown ball, and a 2 counts as dropping a difficult-to-catch (but still catchable) pass. Step 3 involves watching a ton of film. It will probably be necessary to watch the same game many times, just so that each player can be assigned a grade on the above-described scale. Ideally, you and your staff would watch at least 1 - 2 seasons' worth of games, with each player assigned a grade for each play. Once you had that data, it would be fairly straightforward to develop a statistical model which could answer questions like, "If an offensive lineman loses his battle against a defender, how many fewer yards is the running play likely to gain than would have been the case, had he won the battle?" Once you can answer questions like that, then you can determine your average expected yards per running play with Offensive Lineman A versus Offensive Lineman B. For step 4, you look for guys who can provide the most yardage per play at the lowest possible cost. This does not necessarily mean weeding out star players and their high salaries. A guy like Aaron Rodgers or Peyton Manning almost certainly contributes enough to his team's yards per pass play to more than justify a princely salary.

Good post. As you hinted at, much of that win had more to do with the Jets having a bad game than the Bills playing well. I strongly agree with what you've written about the importance of keeping Levitre. It's disappointing the Bills didn't get him locked up prior to the season. The more I learn about Glennon, the more I like him. He has the arm strength to make all the throws; so the swirling winds of Ralph Wilson Stadium shouldn't be an issue for him. I also like his throwing accuracy, and my sense is he has a high football I.Q. He isn't exactly the most mobile guy in the world, but guys like Tom Brady have proven you can succeed without being mobile.

A while back, the Bengals drafted Carson Palmer first overall. They kept Palmer on the bench his entire rookie year, giving him a chance to learn the offense. Jon Kitna remained the starter for that year. The next year Palmer was anointed the starter. There were some mixed feelings in the locker room at first, because the players trusted Kitna. Probably much more so than Bills players like Stevie Johnson trust Fitz. The mixed feelings in the Bengals locker room quickly went away, as it became clear Palmer was the better quarterback. Kitna was valuable to the Bengals in a backup role, just as Fitz would be valuable to the Bills as a backup.

If the bolded part is true, it makes me want Chip Kelly even more. In order to beat a guy like Belichick, you need another guy with the same intellectual rigor Belichick has. As for whether Belichick's presence would deter Kelly: my guess is that Kelly has a very high level of self-confidence. He's used to succeeding, and probably believes he will continue to succeed as an NFL head coach. Especially if he has a good working relationship with the general manager--a relationship which would allow him to put in place the pieces he wants. Also, Tom Brady isn't getting any younger. Once he retires or loses his edge, the playing field in the AFC East will get a lot more level. In any case, this article makes a great case why Chip Kelly would be a great head coach.

This thread prompted me to do some research on Frank Reich. In 2008, he became an offensive coaching staff assistant for the Colts. From 2009 - 2010, he served as the Colts' quarterback coach. In 2011, he served as their wide receivers coach. This year he's the Cardinals' wide receivers coach. The next logical step in this career progression would be offensive coordinator. The Bills' next offensive coordinator should be creative, highly intelligent, and able to think outside the box. I don't know enough about Reich to gauge whether he fits that description. In a situation like this, it's worth doing further digging. (As opposed to some, who want to hire him because of their fond memories of him as a player. Or as opposed to others, who seem to be instinctively opposed to the hire, apparently on the theory that his past Bills connections are his only qualification for the position. They are not.)

What do you expect from someone who's best friends with OJ?

> Now, though - for the last few years - a new type of QB is emerging. He's fast footed, strong armed, and very athletic. J.P. Losman is fast footed, strong armed, and very athletic. But he hasn't emerged as anything, except as a first round bust. The absolute last thing the Bills should do would be to once again embrace the kind of thinking which led them to take Losman in the first place! Nor is Losman the only example of how that kind of thinking can (and usually will) lead a team to take first round busts at QB. Over the years, there have been plenty of strong armed, highly mobile first round QB busts. Back in the '70s, the prototypical QB was big, strong armed, and could throw a good deep ball. Think Terry Bradshaw. Joe Montana lasted until the third round, largely because he didn't have the big time arm that general managers craved. But Montana demonstrated that accuracy, touch, and the ability to hit the receiver in perfect stride can more than compensate for a lack of Bradshaw-like arm strength. Drew Bledsoe was a lot like Bradshaw. Neither were particularly mobile, both had big arms, and both threw the long ball well. Tom Brady's arm wasn't (and isn't) as big as Bledsoe's. Nor is Brady mobile: he actually lost a foot race to Bledsoe! But he made up for all that with his high level of throwing accuracy, and with his ability to process information much more quickly than Bledsoe. Mobility is optional, and a big time arm is optional. The three core traits you need in a QB are accuracy, fast information processing ability, and a passionate desire to win. It's much more important for the Bills' next QB to have all three of those traits than it is for them to get some strong armed dual threat QB.

The argument has been made that yesterday's win helped the Bills. That it's better for them to develop the habit of winning, than it is for them to benefit from a mild improvement in draft position. I disagree with that perspective. I personally want to see Bills players develop good habits--especially those players in the Bills' long term future. I want Cordy Glenn to develop the habit of dominating the guy across from him, each and every week. I want Gilmore to develop the habit of shutting down whichever WR he's lined up against. If enough players like that develop those habits, then the team as a whole will start winning. One of the main reasons for the Bills win yesterday was that Fitzpatrick significantly outplayed Sanchez. Maybe that increases Fitzpatrick's confidence in himself, or his teammates' confidence in him. Maybe that reduces Sanchez's self-confidence. But so what? If, a few years ago, a guy like Losman or Trent Edwards had outplayed Chad Henne in a meaningless late season game, what good would it have done? Neither Edwards, Losman, Henne, Fitzpatrick, or Sanchez are long term answers at quarterback, and I think general managers around the league are smart enough to realize that. There's no need for our guy on that list to outplay the other team's guy on that list. Especially not when the only effect is to cost us draft position. The Bills have been down this road before. In 2001, the Bills played their hearts out to win a meaningless late season game against the Carolina Panthers. In the 2002 draft, the Panthers took Julius Peppers second overall. The Bills took Mike Williams fourth overall. In 2003, the Bills managed to win just enough games to keep themselves out of the top 10 of the 2004 draft. Ben Roethlisberger was taken shortly before the Bills picked, after TD abandoned his effort to trade up to get him.

This.

It's hard to lose in the NFL.

My bad. I'd forgotten that the Raiders lost to the Ravens of 2000 in the AFC Championship game back when Gruden was still the Raiders' head coach.

You obviously want a coordinator who has a significantly better grasp of Xs and Os than most other coordinators around the league. You want a guy who's significantly smarter than most other coordinators. My sense is that TD may have significantly overestimated both the Xs and Os ability, and the intelligence, of Gregg and Mularkey.

Today, Jon Gruden is a very respected name, known for taking two different teams to the Super Bowl. But turn the clock back a few years, and the Jon Gruden of back then was just a hot shot offensive coordinator vying for his first head coaching gig. There were problems with the Raiders organization. They had an elderly owner known for meddling. The team had been in a rut for a very long time. Their glory years were a thing of the distant past, and they were well on their way to getting a reputation for being a poorly run, dysfunctional organization. But the Raiders landed Gruden anyway. Gruden was young, ambitious, and supremely confident in his own ability to turn a team around. He just wanted someone--anyone--to give him a chance as a head coach, so that he could show what he could do. Maybe the Bills will succeed in landing Gruden personally. (Assuming they're wooing him in the first place.) But if not, why not find someone who fits into the Gruden mold? Young, ambitious, never been a head coach before, highly intelligent, very confident in his own ability.

> If the new helmet can reduce the incidence of concussion compared to existing helmets, then the technology is progressing. Agreed. And it's not just about reducing the incidence of concussions. It's about reducing the total quantity of brain trauma a player receives over the course of his career. That said, I agree with those who have pointed out that there are limits to what technology can do to reduce brain trauma. On the one hand, technological advances to helmet technology can and should be pushed as far as possible. On the other hand, I suspect that the most serious reductions in brain trauma will not occur until rules changes are made. The one gentleman who suggested that tackling rules be changed to make them more rugby-like may well be right.

> In the test referenced, is there ANY disclaimer that the forces reduced by 55% WEREN'T sufficient to cause a concussion in someone? Isn't it better to reduce the forces by 55% than to not reduce them at all?

You make excellent points. A city which won't use tax money to help its team risks losing that team to some other city which will. Unfortunately, that's how the game is played. The problem with all this is that public tax money is flowing to millionaires (the players) and billionaires (the owners). There is absolutely no reason whatsoever that such a situation should be accepted. But the way to stop this is not (as the author seems to suppose) at the local or state level. Nor are downstate voters--like the author of the article--in any position to complain about upstate siphoning off too much money. The way to solve this is at the federal level. Part of the NFL's anti-trust exemption should include a stipulation that all NFL teams are prohibited from accepting public funding, loans from governments, etc. This would cut back on the amount of money flowing into the NFL (a good thing), reduce government spending (a good thing), and would mean lower player salaries and smaller profits for owners (both good).