Orton's Arm

> Why don't you just tell us why the refs do it. Be very specific. MattM has already proposed money as the answer. I have absolutely no problem whatever imagining that Kraft would be willing to bribe officials, if he thought he could get away with it. I don't know how corruptible the officials are. But MattM has already cited one example of a former head official who sounded very open to the creation of a payola scheme. There are two other possible explanations. Kraft is on the rules committee, and as such is one of the refs' bosses. Maybe the word on the street is that you don't want to offend that particular boss. If this explanation is correct, you'd expect to see relatively even-handed officiating when the Patriots play some other team represented on the rules committee. But very uneven officiating when they play a team not represented on that committee--such as Buffalo. A third possible explanation is that the refs let the Patriots get away with more because of the high regard in which they're held. The same reason that a Hall of Fame player like Michael Irvin could get away with pushing off against defenders, whereas a guy like Kamil Loud could not. However, even relatively unknown Patriots have been beneficiaries of favorable calls and (especially) favorable non-calls. If this third explanation is indeed the reason for the refs' pro-Patriot bias, it's because Bill Belichick is held in higher regard than most other head coaches around the league. The officiating bias is team-specific, not player-specific. > why would a tiny group of very rich men sit idly by while one and only one of them got preferential treatment Kraft doesn't have to worry about all 32 owners. He only needs to pay attention to that subset of owners represented on the rules committee. If (for example) he's paying the refs, it might quietly be explained to them that they were not expected to help the Patriots much in games against other teams represented on the rules committee. As long as he avoids offending those particular teams, there is no reason to believe that a majority of the rules committee would care enough about the issue to take effectual action.

> it's also why I don't want to give up on EJ Manuel is not more accurate than Losman. Nor is he better at processing information than Losman. Nor are his physical tools much different than Losman's. At least Losman could throw a nice long bomb. There is no aspect of Manuel's on-field play that stands out as significantly better than Losman's, or as likely to become better. Manuel will be lucky to have as good a career as Losman had. That's not the offensive coordinator's fault. Not even Bill Walsh could have turned Manuel into an accurate passer or someone who processes information rapidly. > Basically, Orton and Fitz are the same guy. I'm not sure I agree. Orton looks more accurate to me. I also see him making the kinds of difficult throws that Fitz would typically avoid. > And I hate that we're back here. I can empathize with that feeling. It probably isn't much different than how I felt when the Bills drafted Manuel in the first place. When they announced the pick, I felt exactly the same emotions I had after the Music City Miracle. Trust me, I was not a happy camper. The Bills haven't had a legitimate quarterback of the future since Kelly hung up his cleats. But at least now they realize they don't have a quarterback of the future. That's a step in the right direction. An even bigger step in the right direction would be if Pegula made sure that the people picking Manuel's replacement are not the same ones who chose Manuel. There's talent on this team. But for that talent to come together, we're first going to need the right general manager, head coach, and quarterback.

Orton is a much more accurate passer--especially on intermediate to deep passes--than Fitzpatrick. That's why Orton's YPA is better. However, Fitz had the better offensive coordinator. Also, Gailey tended not to call very many running plays in the red zone. If a drive resulted in a touchdown, it would typically be because of a pass, not a run. The Bills had a better running game with Gailey. During one season under Gailey Spiller averaged 6.0 yards per carry; as opposed to whatever dismal average he's putting together this year under Hackett. Not only that, but Hackett has a strong tendency to waste large numbers of plays on running Spiller up the middle for 2 yard gains. On third down, Orton is expected to make up for Hackett's misdeeds on first and second down. The first time he fails to complete a pass--whether due to his own fault, or a drop, or a missed block, or no one getting open--the drive will often end. Gailey typically avoided run, run, pass. Is Orton a better quarterback than Fitzpatrick? Absolutely. But he isn't enough better to compensate for the downgrade at offensive coordinator, the decreased per-play effectiveness of the running game, and the collapse of the interior OL.

Very, very good post, MattM. One of the best I've ever seen on this forum. Anyone who hasn't yet taken the time to read it should do so. I agree with you that officiating bias isn't part of some larger ploy to help the big market teams. While the officiating in the Chicago game wasn't perfect, neither was it Patriots-like. The same has typically been true of our games against the Bears, or the Giants, or the Jets. It's highly unlikely that all 32 owners--or even a large subset of those 32 owners--would get together and begin discussing ways to manipulate officiating to help big market teams. It does seem possible that an individual owner might take it upon himself to become heavily involved in officiating matters. In which case, his objective would be to benefit his own team--not big market teams generally. In a large organization--or an organization of any size, actually--politics typically matter. The fact that Kraft sits on the rules committee is important. As is Kraft's pivotal role in getting Goodell hired. Not to mention his position on Viacom's board. He's clearly put himself in a position in which he could influence officiating, if that's what he wanted to do. The fact the officiating is so strongly slanted in the Patriots' favor suggests this is exactly what he's done.

Orton is only 31. He can hold down the fort for several years if need be. My sense is that going into the 2013 draft, the Bills had decided to take the best QB available. They failed to do that--the best available QB was Glennon--but at least they took the QB they felt was the best one available. The problem with deciding to take a quarterback right away is that you can end up taking one in a very weak QB draft class. As the Bills did with Manuel. The approach that resulted in EJ Manuel is not the one I want to see them use going into the 2015 draft! Getting the right quarterback is important. They should be willing to trade away multiple first round picks and players if that's what it takes to get the next franchise QB. But it's not urgent. By that I mean that there is no benefit to taking an "okay" quarterback in 2015 or 2016; as opposed to waiting for the right quarterback in 2017 or 2018. (Though getting the right quarterback isn't just about waiting. It's also about being willing to trade up if need be. TD didn't trade up for Roethlisberger, because he felt Houston's asking price was too high. Instead he chose to save on draft picks by taking Losman instead.) Orton is averaging over 7 yards per attempt this season. Just as he's done for each of his past five seasons. (Except for the Broncos half of his 2011 season.) To put that into perspective, Fitz generally averaged 6.7 yards per attempt while with the Bills (and never more than 6.8); whereas Tom Brady's career average is 7.4 yards per attempt, and Peyton Manning's is 7.7. There's no sense in drafting a quarterback unless we're reasonably confident he'll be a significant upgrade over what Orton currently has to offer. A QB who turned into a solid starter would (from the Bills' perspective) be a waste of a draft pick, because we have that already in the form of Orton. But if the draft pick became a franchise quarterback, that would represent a significant upgrade over Orton; thereby justifying the draft picks expended. But we might have to wait several years to draft a guy like that; even if we're willing to trade up.

We'll have to agree to disagree about the eyeball test. By my eyeball test, Orton looks like a real NFL QB. As for his stats, below are his yards per attempt stats for the last five years: 2010: 7.3 2011 (Broncos): 6.3 2011 (Chiefs): 8.0 2012: 8.9 2013: 7.8 2014: 7.5 To put all this in comparison, Trent Edwards averaged 6.5 yards per attempt for his career. Losman averaged 6.6 yards per attempt. Fitzpatrick never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt during any season in Buffalo. (His usual was 6.7.) On the other hand, Tom Brady's career average is 7.4 yards per attempt; and Peyton Manning's career average is 7.7 yards per attempt. While Orton isn't Brady or Manning, he is a significant upgrade over Fitz. That's reflected by both stats and the eyeball test.

> If only EJ Manuel got the "pass" many of you give Gilmore, he'd still be playing! Which would undoubtedly make Cleveland fans very happy.

Assuming you're right, the Bills shouldn't take a QB in the upcoming draft. Orton is more than good enough to get us by for now. If the other teams do something stupid--such as letting a polished pocket passer fall to us--then that's another kettle of fish. But if there are going to be a bunch of quarterback hungry teams using their first round picks to over-draft people, something can be said for waiting. In 2016 the Bills will once again have a first round pick. And if things play out as you've described, all those quarterback-hungry teams will have (at least temporarily) sated their desire to draft their quarterbacks of the future.

If you click here and sort the list by percentage of air yards, you'll see that E.J. Manuel is dead last (among the 32 QBs listed) in terms of percentage of air yards. 33% of his total passing yards came because of air yards. The other 67% was due to YAC. Compare that to the top QB on the list: Mike Glennon. Glennon gained 69.4% of his total yardage through the air; and only 30.6% due to YAC. While all QBs benefit from YAC, not all benefit equally. If you then sort the list by air yards per attempt, you'll see Manuel is dead last, with an average of 2.13. The second-worst QB on the list--the 31st ranked guy--is Ryan Tannehill, with 2.56 air yards per attempt. From this link: > 68.6 percent of [Manuel's] rookie season passes traveled fewer than 10 yards in the air. That 68.8 percent doesn't represent Montana-like quick slant passes to targets moving horizontally. No. The vast, vast majority of those passes were to stationary targets. Targets less than 10 yards away. I could have thrown those passes! And thrown them at least as accurately as Manuel. It wouldn't even have been all that difficult. Those are routine, boring passes to make--at least for a random fan like me. On two thirds of his throwing attempts, Manuel isn't doing anything more than a random fan could do. On the other hand, Kyle Orton routinely completes throws I'd never dream of attempting. Throws that are way, way beyond my pay grade or ability level. Throws that put Orton in a different league than me. (Both literally and figuratively.) So what do we do about all those short throws to stationary targets Manuel makes? If I could make those throws--and I can--then I have to believe that almost any QB who's ever been on an NFL roster or practice squad could make those throws too. These are really elementary, basic throws! It's not like Manuel is doing anything special to help generate YAC that those other QBs wouldn't have done. The YAC is really, really high because of play design, and because guys like Fred Jackson and Sammy Watkins are exceptional at gaining yards after the catch. Giving Manuel credit for that YAC confuses the issue, and distorts what would otherwise be a painfully clear picture. Air yards per attempt tells the true story of Manuel's performance.

> Start thinking early 90's Bills Except that this team doesn't have a Jim Kelly. Or a Thurman Thomas. Or a Bill Polian. Or a Kent Hull or Jim Ritcher. > That draft would still look significantly better had the GM replaced Andy Levitre with something other then utter garbage in Colin Brown, Hard to argue with that. A vague hint of credibility along the OL would completely transform the offense. > EJ might still become a decent starter should the team ever decide to fix the line properly. No. There's no significant aspect of E.J. Manuel's game that either is better or looks likely to become better than the same aspect of J.P. Losman's game. Manuel is not more accurate than Losman, isn't better at processing information than Losman, and doesn't have significantly better physical tools than those Losman had. Nor--to be perfectly blunt--does he have Losman's ability to hit Lee Evans-like targets on long bombs. There is no reason to believe Manuel will have a better career than the one Losman had. Losman has been out of the league for years now, due to his inability to make a final roster cut. By the time Manuel reaches Losman's current age, he'll have been out of the league for years too. But even in the highly unlikely event Manuel somehow manages to become a "decent starter," that doesn't put us on the same footing we were on in the early '90s. Nor does it put us on better footing than we have currently, because we already have a decent starter in the form of Kyle Orton.

You are exactly right. Manuel was the beneficiary of excellent YAC. A two yard pass to Fred Jackson would go for a 40 yard gain. Or a 20 yard pass to an insanely open Mike Williams would go for an 80 yard gain and a TD. By comparing air yards per attempt with yards per attempt, it was possible to determine that 67% of Manuel's passing yardage had come via YAC. Given that most of his throws were to stationary targets, it's not like he was doing anything special to help generate all that YAC. IIRC, Manuel was the 31st best QB in terms of air yards per attempt. As a consequence of all this, both his quarterback rating and yards per attempt stats greatly overstated the quality of his play. There is another way to distort both those stats: by taking a lot of sacks. Rob Johnson is a good example of that. In fact, he's the example of that, given that his sack percentage is twice as high as any other QB in NFL history. Both his yards per attempt and quarterback rating look very impressive. But, again, both those stats have been distorted due to all the sacks he took. If other quarterbacks took sacks every time a play was less than perfect, their YPA and quarterback rating stats would go up too. The moral of this story is that we should avoid religious reliance on any given stat. All stats of which I'm aware are subject to distortion. This specifically includes my favorite stats (yards per attempt and air yards per attempt). Nor is the correct response to throw up one's hands and give up on stats completely. Instead of all that, we should use a number of different stats--plus the eyeball test--to keep digging, until the truth has been discovered.

> If you could give me some direction on how the interception percentage should combine with the YPA I would be happy to run the numbers. Step 1: determine a reasonable range for each variable. Range for yards per attempt: 6.0 - 8.0. Range for INT percentage: 0% - 6%. Step 2: determine a QB's actual performance as a percentage of possible performance. A yards per attempt of 7.0 represents 50% of what he could have achieved on that 6.0 - 8.0 scale. Turning that into a mathematical formula, you have the following: Maximum performance (8.0) - actual performance (7.0) _________________________________________________ = Maximum performance (8.0) - minimum performance (6.0) 8.0 - 7.0 ________ = 8.0 - 6.0 1/2 = 50% You can use that same formula to calculate how well a QB is doing in terms of interception percentage. If his INT rate is 2%, then he's 66.67% of the way toward performing at his theoretical maximum. (Given that a 6% INT percentage is the theoretical worst-case scenario, and a 0% INT percentage is the best case.) Suppose a QB's yards per attempt is 55% of the theoretical maximum, and his INT rate is 62% of the theoretical best-case scenario. To finish this process, do the following. 0.75 x (yards per attempt score) + 0.25 x (INT score) = total score. (0.75 x 55%) + (0.25 x 62%) = 0.4125 + 0.155 = 0.5675. Multiply by 100 to get 56.75. That's the QB's score on a scale of 0 - 100. It's possible for a QB's score to fall outside that 0 - 100 range, because some will have YPA or INT percentages outside the range I specified. But cases like that will be extremely rare.

That's a good way of looking at it. I'd argue we could get more than a third for Kiko--especially if he comes back healthy next season and performs at or above his rookie year standards--but other than that, it's hard to disagree with much of anything from your post.

The reason you want him to pick one is so that you can then proceed to dismiss his entire argument as a conspiracy theory. An entirely irrational attempt on his part to explain away the last 15 years of Patriots dominance over the Bills. All of which would make perfect sense if you didn't actually watch the Bills/Patriots game. I don't see how anyone could watch that game and come away thinking the refs displayed anything other than pro-Patriots bias. During the telecast, Barber--a guy with no connections to Buffalo--said, "I'm a defensive back. I hate to call anything pass interference. But that [referring to a Patriot mugging a Bills' WR] was pass interference." A non-call. One of many non-calls which benefited the Patriots. In a perfect world, the NFL would seek to apply the same rules to every team and every player, regardless of situation. But that isn't how NFL officiating works. Nor has it been for quite some time. Michael Irvin got away with pushing off against defenders. Other, lesser-known WRs would have been called for offensive pass interference. The same ref tendencies which worked in Irvin's favor back in the '90s benefited the Patriots in spades when they played the Bills. All I'm asking--all anyone here is asking--is to a) acknowledge that the refs treat players and coaches differently, depending on reputation, and on which owners are members of the rules committee, and b) for the refs to stop doing that! The loftiest Hall of Fame player should be subjected to exactly the same rules as the lowliest practice squad scrub. No favorites, no "special breaks" for players who have "earned it," nothing. Just a nice, predictable, fair set of rules enforced equally against everyone.

> I think what often times happen when you have situation of complete and utter domination (as is the case with Bills and Pats) is those who have fallen victim to such domination (ie the fans of dominated team in this case) often look for ways and means to explain, even rationalize, how such domination can occur. Often times illogical aspects and components are entered into as evidence when, in fact, they are not at all accurate or truly representative of reality. You are obviously unfamiliar with my posting history, or you wouldn't be presenting the above as a possible explanation for my post. In the Bills vs. Patriots game, a number of exceptionally ticky-tack penalties were called against the Bills. IIRC, no such penalties were enforced against the Patriots. On the other hand, a number of flagrant Patriots rules violations were ignored. The officiating was clearly slanted in the Patriots' favor in that particular game. Whether the Bills can overcome the Patriots' dominance is a separate issue. About a year ago, I wrote that the Bills would not win a Super Bowl until they had a new owner, general manager, offensive coordinator, and quarterback. In the big scheme of things, achieving upgrades for the list items not yet addressed is far more important than the officiating. On the other hand, there is no reason for us to pretend that the officiating is "okay" or "unbiased" when nothing we've seen in typical Bills-Patriots games would remotely suggest that as a possibility.

Just to add to my earlier post: suppose you had a RB who obtains exactly 4 yards each carry. If you gave him the ball every time, your team would score a touchdown every drive. (Barring penalties.) This RB's average yards per carry isn't anything out of the ordinary. But his standard deviation is zero; and that--in combination with his respectable yards-per-carry stat--is what makes him special. The 49ers offense of the '80s and '90s had a good, solid average yards per pass attempt. But in addition to that, the standard deviation of their average gain per pass play was relatively low. That low standard deviation, in combination with the relatively high average gain per pass play, better explains their offensive success than a standalone stat like yards per attempt. In their particular case, a low standard deviation per pass play was correlated with a high completion percentage. But that correlation isn't always going to be present. If a QB dumps the ball off to his RB a lot, his completion percentage will be high. But if most of those dump-offs result in 0 - 3 yard gains, and a few result in 30 - 40 yard gains, the standard deviation will be high. The use of completion percentage as a proxy for standard deviation would result in a gross misinterpretation of on-field events--at least for this category of situation.

> Did you watch the Niners at all from 1981 to 2001 (or so)? They lived off of that sort of play. They lived off of 3 yard dump-offs to stationary targets on third and long? > The Niners were 10th in the league that year in YPA but 3rd in passer rating . . . I'll grant the statistics you provided are strong evidence that Garcia's 49ers had a top-5 offense. Not the 10th best offense indicated by YPA. I also acknowledge that a West Coast offense produces benefits not fully measured by YPA; and that these benefits are measured by passer rating. If Montana-style (or even Garcia-style) play was typical of NFL quarterbacks, passer rating might indeed be a better statistical tool to use than yards per attempt. Below is a useful definition of the West Coast offense. > the West Coast Offense can be described as quick, horizontal timing routes to stretch a defense horizontally, and passing to set up the run. From my own personal experience throwing footballs, I know that it's more difficult to hit a target moving horizontally than one that's moving vertically. The easiest target to hit, of course, is one that's stationary. The question then becomes: how many teams trust their quarterbacks enough to make passes to horizontally moving targets the basis of their offenses? Let's look at the Bills' opponents this season. Tannehill doesn't operate that kind of offense with the Dolphins. Nor Fitzpatrick with the Texans, nor Stafford with the Lions, or Cutler with the Bears. Brady could operate an offense like that if he wanted to. But against the Bills, the Patriots' yardage often came in very large chunks. It's not obvious to me that any of the Bills' opponents did things which wouldn't have been detected by yards per attempt, but would have been detected by passer rating. Let's say a QB dumps the ball off to his RB a lot. Typically, you're not going to be able to sustain 49ers-style many play drives by doing that. You can sustain such drives by throwing quick slants to your #1 WR, and by other throws to horizontally moving targets. But not by always going to your dump-off option. But if a QB keeps dumping the ball off, sometimes he'll get lucky. Sometimes the RB or other dump-off option will generate a really big YAC. That YAC will inflate the QB's quarterback rating and yards per attempt stat. All those completions to RBs will also inflate his completion percentage. I'm not claiming that every non-Brady/Rivers QB we've faced is Trent Edwards. Normally, our opponent QBs provided a mix of short, intermediate, and deep passes. But when they did go short, it was far more likely to be a dump-off to a stationary target, than a pass to a target moving horizontally. The median gain per play will be much lower on a dump-off to a RB than on a quick pass to a WR moving horizontally. Due to the low per-play median gain associated with dump-offs, you're not going to be able to use them to inflict very many "death by a thousand small cuts" drives on opposing defenses. Because dump-offs have a relatively low median gain, and a high standard deviation (due to a few big YAC plays), their efficacy should be measured by yards per attempt--not by any stat which takes completion percentage into account.

> They failed to call several penalties on the Pats when they were blatantly obvious and would have changed the game. It was obvious that the Bills were being held to a completely different standard than the Patriots. Nor was that the first time this season the Patriots have benefited from very favorable, one-sided officiating. Players on all teams make stupid mistakes, such as false starts. They'll push whatever limits have been set, resulting in additional penalties. The typical pattern is for the refs to penalize the Patriots for obvious stuff--such as encroachment or offsides--while giving them the benefit of the doubt on plays which require more of a judgement call. (Offensive and defensive pass interference, holding, etc.) I'm not concerned about the ref providing advice to the Patriot before the snap. Maybe that same ref would have provided the exact same advice to a member of the opposing team also. There's no proof that a double standard was being used. But there have been plenty of other times when it's been glaringly obvious a double standard was being used.

> No need to continue this dialogue, either. Agreed. But I'd like to clarify one aspect of my earlier argument before bringing this to a close. Earlier, I wrote, that reports indicated "[Manuel] only had to make one read in his simplified college offense." You seem to have interpreted this as a claim that Fisher only made one read per play available to Manuel. Doubtless multiple reads were made available to Manuel on virtually every play. But--at least according to most of the reports I've read--he didn't avail himself of those multiple reads. He'd either throw it to his primary target or, if that primary target wasn't college open, he'd go to his dump-off option. Do the claims in those reports ring true? They accurately describe what I've seen of the portion of his college film I've watched. They also accurately describe the vast, vast majority of the plays I've seen him make as a Buffalo Bill. Back when Lawyer Milloy was still with the Patriots, it was common for people within that organization to talk about all the big plays he made. Big plays which supposedly offset the fact that he was an average player on most downs, being paid a high salary. Then Bill Belichick asked the question, "What big plays?" He correctly pointed out that in the last 1 - 2 years, Milloy had made very few big plays. There was very little reason to continue paying him that high salary. Shortly after coming to this realization, the Patriots released him. It's easy for people--even people who do this for a living--to see more than is really there. People get in the habit of talking about the big plays made by a guy like Lawyer Milloy, or the multiple reads that EJ Manuel supposedly made on a routine basis in college. People need to be more open to the possibility that Lawyer Milloy might not have been making many big plays, or that Manuel might not have been making more than one read per play. (At least not on the vast majority of his plays.) Or, worse, people will see that Manuel wasn't making multiple reads for the vast majority of his college plays, and will explain that observation away by using words like "project."

> Toss in he looks to be the best QB of his class. It was an extremely weak class. There was nobody in particular in it except for Glennon. And even Glennon seems to have a Ryan Fitzpatrick-type ceiling. (I'm not talking about his physical ceiling; but about his overall ceiling. Accuracy, decision-making, etc.) Glennon isn't necessarily a long-term answer for the Bucs. As for the second-best QB in that class, the current front runners are Manuel and Geno. But it wouldn't shock me if some other quarterback emerged from his present relative obscurity to claim that #2 ranking for his own. Robert Woods seems like a decent selection. Assuming he stays healthy--the highlight of this draft will have been Alonzo. I wish the draft had provided more than just Alonzo and Woods. But it didn't; and the guy at least nominally in charge of it has already been replaced.

> Your emphasis on ypa is a red herring because no one is saying it's unimportant and because it's a core feature of the stat you're deriding. But why use quarterback rating at all when YPA is better? (Especially when you mix three parts YPA with one part interception percentage.) > Completion percentage isn't unimportant, btw; there's usually a pretty strong correlation between completion pct and ypa. Why do I need something with a correlation to YPA when I can have YPA straight up? Including completion percentage as one of their variables did not meaningfully increase the predictive power of the New York Times' linear regression model. > I think your view is skewed because you focus on Bills QBs too much. I admit to being more familiar with Bills QBs than with non-Bills QBs. However, let's say there's some hypothetical way a statistical measure could overstate a QB's performance. If someone asks, "How do I know any real QB will ever have his performance overstated in the way you're describing?" I can almost always point to some post-Kelly Bills' QB to give him his answer. > even while Montana's ypa numbers were usually not stratospheric, what made that offense so good is that their passing plays usually resulted in positive yardage I disagree with the way you've phrased this. A three yard dump-off on third-and-long results in positive yardage and an increased completion percentage, but does not result in a good offense. What made Montana's offense so good is that he kept the chains moving. It's better to kill a defense with a thousand small cuts, than it is with a few long bombs. I'll grant that Montana produced better offensive results (and a higher completion percentage) than most other quarterbacks with similar YPA stats. But Montana may be a statistical outlier, not part of some larger pattern. For every guy like him, there are dozens like Trent Edwards or E.J. Manuel. Guys who increase their completion percentage not by throwing short passes to targets moving horizontally, but by dumping the ball off to stationary targets. Hitting a horizontally moving target in perfect stride (as Montana did) is very difficult. Dumping the ball off to someone stationary, less than 10 yards away, is easy. As a general rule--and not just in football--you see easy things attempted far more often than difficult things. > For what it's worth, after 6 games opponents have a 94.3 rating against the Bills D, and our offense has an 83.9 rating. Last year under Pettine, it was 74.9 (the Bills offense had a 75.0 rating). Statistics like the above are reasonably useful. But I'd be more interested to see the yards per pass attempt our defense allowed last year, and the YPA it's allowing this year.

Just to be sure no one would draw up plays like that, they got rid of the cheerleader squad.

> Also, ae you honestly saying that int rate shouldn't count? INT rate should count. It was one of the key variables found in the NY Times linear regression. > The problem with your earlier argument - which you've changed - was that you were comparing ratings across eras. My earlier argument has not changed. The ease or difficulty of accumulating passing yardage does not seem to have changed much across eras, as demonstrated by the fact that the yards per attempt stats from the best QBs of the '40s, '50s, or '60s are comparable to the best modern era quarterbacks. If quarterback rating can't be meaningfully used across eras--and I agree it cannot be--it's because it takes completion percentage into account. For this reason, it cannot be used to meaningfully compare any two quarterbacks with differing propensities for dumping the ball off short, regardless of era. > Please explain to me why passer rating differential isn't an indicative stat. Passer rating is a meal with some good ingredients (yards per attempt and INT percentage) and some junk food ingredients (completion percentage). In the aggregate, the effect of the nutritious ingredients will tend to outweigh the effect of the junk. But once you start talking about specific quarterbacks, the junk food aspect of passer rating can quickly lead to problems. If you're looking at an individual quarterback, you shouldn't use a hodgepodge stat like passer rating. Instead, you should break passer rating into its component pieces. Those pieces are air yards, YAC yards, INT percentage, completion percentage, and TD percentage. By examining each piece individually, you'll develop a far more meaningful perspective of the QB's play than would have been the case had you relied solely on passer rating. > Switching the topic to ypa is a red herring. Yards per attempt is not a red herring. To the extent that passer rating is useful, it's because it relies on yards per attempt and interception percentage.

Fixed.

At this point, Kouandjio looks like a bust. One of a series of reasons for getting rid of Whaley after the season. That said, I can't disagree with Kouandijo's comment about having fun. If you start to overthink things, second-guess yourself, have a "worry list" hundreds of items long, you'll tend to do less well than if you let all that stuff go. Oftentimes you instinctively know what to do. And will end up doing what you need to do if you focus on having fun. "Fun" for an offensive lineman probably consists of dominating the guy he's supposed to be blocking.