Orton's Arm

The Colts went 1-15 during the season leading up to them drafting Peyton Manning. Surely they must have had more problems than just at QB to have gone 1-15. Even though Manning didn't give them a Super Bowl win right away, he proved to be an extremely valuable long term addition to the team.

> The way the Bill's draft, I don't think we'll ever seen a franchise QB. Buddy Nix was high on Cam Newton, and would have taken him 3rd overall had he still been available. Buddy was also high on Christian Ponder, and would like to have traded back into the first to take him. Ponder is playing reasonably well for the Vikings. > I think there are so many problems with the Bill's right now, drafting a QB in 2013 will be a waste > of time. It'll be a Trent Edwards, JP Losman, Colt McCoy, Kyle Orton QB The people who recommended Losman and Edwards are now gone. Yes, drafting a QB is still a risk. But if you don't take that risk, you doom yourself to mediocrity for as long as Fitz is under center. The Bills need to draft a QB in the first round. If he doesn't work out, they need to keep drafting first round QBs, until they find The Guy! Once you have The Guy, you build a team around him; knowing that his career represents your window of opportunity for a Super Bowl win.

Why is it that rushing four and dropping everyone else into coverage worked well the first 2.5 quarters, but failed miserably after that? (That's not a rhetorical question: I'm genuinely interested in hearing others' opinions.)

> The only problem with that stance is you think that if we had an "NFL caliber" QB we would have won today You are confusing the issue by putting words into my mouth. I never said nor implied the above. > Fitzpatrick played well enough beyond unlucky breaks and a few bad throws to win us this game. It wasn't just the four INTs that he threw. (Though those hurt.) It was the wasted opportunities, like the ones stevestojan described in his post. If anything, the opportunities Fitz wastes with his inaccurate throws are an even bigger problem than the INTs. With a franchise QB you typically don't have that problem. You know that if the OL does its share by creating a nice pocket, and the WR does his share by getting open, that the pass will almost certainly be accurately delivered. That means the offense as a whole will waste far fewer scarce, valuable opportunities. Look at what Tom Brady did to us in the last 1.5 quarters of play. Suppose Fitz were to go against a defense playing every bit as badly as the Bills' defense did during that stretch. Do you think Fitz could rip that defense apart, the way Brady tore ours apart? I do not. Fitz could not even come close to doing what Brady did. That puts a lot of pressure on the rest of the team. They know that Fitz can't bail them out, the way Brady can bail out the Patriots. There's a lot more wrong with this team than just the quarterback. But if you postpone drafting a QB until everything else about your team is perfect, you won't have the top-10 draft pick so often required to obtain a franchise QB. If the Bills are to win the Super Bowl, they must do whatever it takes to get a franchise QB. Trade away existing players, trade away draft picks to move up in the draft, whatever. But get that franchise QB!

Great post! I agree with it 100%, from start to finish.

Why does everything have to be either/or around here? Any time you lose this badly, there's plenty of blame to go around! The defense stank--no one is arguing with that. But Fitz threw four interceptions today, so don't act like he didn't contribute to the loss.

Speaking of which: I don't remember the name of the Jets' OT that Mario went against in week 1. But when I saw a picture of the two playing against each other, I noticed that the Jets' "hands to the face" OT looked bigger and stronger than Mario. The Jets' OT looked like he had sculpted muscle, with very little body fat. Mario seemed like he had significantly less muscle overall, and like whatever muscle he had was hidden under a layer of baby fat. If someone who knew nothing of either player was shown that picture, he'd conclude that the Jets' OT looked like he could dominate any physical contest between the two. Pretty depressing . . .

Don't worry: you can build up hate faster than you think!

In the Super Bowl, the Giants had success by rushing three or four guys, and dropping the rest back into coverage. Brady had nowhere to throw the ball! If you're going to use a strategy like that, you have to have your DBs play tight coverage. That's the #1 thing required to make that strategy work; and the one thing without which it cannot possibly work. Brady will destroy you if you play soft coverage in a scheme like that. (Much like Sanchez did to us a few weeks ago. Except that what Brady would do to us would be worse than what Sanchez did.) Take away anywhere for Brady to throw the ball. Then rely on your front four to generate a good pass rush. If you want to confuse the offense, have the DL do a lot of stunts; and do some sneaky things with some of the guys in coverage. A strategy like that can contain the Patriots' offense, at least if you have the right players in place to execute it. I think the Bills have a pretty good bunch in place, though I'm still a bit nervous about the pass coverage.

> On the surface, and looking at the 3 year comparison above, I'd say the main reason is far fewer attempts. I disagree, but I'm open to changing my mind if more evidence is presented. I'll start with the two year period of Cutler's career from 2007 - 2008. In both years he started all 16 games for the Broncos. In 2007 he had 467 passing attempts. In 2008 he had 616 passing attempts. If having more passing attempts lowers your yards per attempt, you'd think he would have had a much lower yards per attempt in 2008 than in 2007. His yards per attempt was 7.5 in 2007, and 7.3 in 2008. That would seem to suggest that greatly increasing a QB's number of pass attempts can cause a small drop in yards per attempt. But the gap between Cutler and Fitz is much greater. You could point to the fact that Cutler had more pass attempts (and a lower YPA) in his first year in Chicago than in subsequent years. And you'd be right. But how much of that low YPA during that first year was because of too many pass attempts, how much was because of his adjusting to a new offense, and how much of it was his supporting cast's fault? It's difficult to quantify answers to questions like that. To resolve that dilemma, I decided to look at Ben Roethlisberger, to see if an increased number of attempts seemed to correspond with a decreased YPA. The data are as follows: 2004 - 23 passes per game - 8.9 YPA 2005 - 22 passes per game - 8.9 YPA 2006 - 31 passes per game - 7.5 YPA 2007 - 37 passes per game - 7.8 YPA 2008 - 29 passes per game - 7.0 YPA 2009 - 34 passes per game - 8.6 YPA 2010 - 32 passes per game - 8.2 YPA 2011 - 34 passes per game - 7.9 YPA There have been three years in which Roethlisberger averaged over 33 pass attempts per game. During those three years, his YPA was 7.8, 8.6, and 7.9. His career average is 8.0 YPA. During the three years in which he had the most pass attempts, he averaged 8.1 YPA. Increased pass attempts don't seem to have hurt his YPA. I suppose one could do this same exercise for QBs around the league, to see if an increased number of passing attempts correlates to lower YPA. > Why is Cutler less accurate than Fitz over the last three years if the reason isn't more attempts overall or throwing more deep passes? I disagree with the way you're using the word "accurate." Trent Edwards has a career completion percentage of 60.5%, largely because he dumped it off to the running back so often. Jim Kelly's career completion percentage is 60.1%. This does not mean that Trent Edwards is more "accurate" than Jim Kelly. I'll grant that Fitz has a higher completion percentage than Cutler. I'll also grant that both QBs tend to attempt passes of over 20 yards at about the same frequency. (Around 15% of the time.) But not all passes under 20 yards are equally difficult. A lot of the passes Fitz has been attempting in Gailey's new offense have been easy throws. I give Fitz credit for making the right decision, and making it quickly. But the throws themselves are ones every NFL QB should be able to make as a matter of routine.

> I don't accept that Cutler's YPA makes him a more accurate passer, either. In that case, what is your explanation for Cutler's higher YPA average than Fitz? > If it's your contention that Cutler attempts more low percentage passes, I can't accept that. At least for the 2010 season anyway. According to the article, Cutler went deep about 15% of the time; as compared to 16% of the time for Fitzpatrick. While that's a useful datum, we should also ask ourselves what happened the remaining 85% of the time. The offense Gailey created for Fitz involves a lot of high percentage, relatively straightforward throws. That is, many NFL QBs would find it very challenging to make the right read quickly, as Fitz usually can. But the required throws themselves are typically easy and high percentage. > I've linked the PFF article before. It's a good article. I found it interesting that Peyton Manning had the 22nd best deep ball completion percentage; Ryan Fitzpatrick the 25th best, and Jay Cutler the 28th best. Those data seem to suggest that deep ball accuracy is not a particular strength for any of those three QBs. > Anyway, as I've contended this entire thread there is no disputing that Cutler has a better arm and is a better passer than Fitz. On that we agree! > I don't think he's a better QB at this point. On that we disagree, though my opinion of Cutler as a QB is lower now than when the discussion began.

> I'm not changing my view on YPA as the single best measurement of a QB's effectiveness as a passer. I think we're in agreement on this point. The fact that Cutler has a much higher YPA than Fitz correctly indicates that Cutler is a more accurate passer than Fitz. > I'm discounting it as an indication that Cutler is a great QB. He isn't to this point. I revised my opinion of Cutler downward after reading the article on page 6 of this thread. The difference between Cutler and Peyton Manning is significantly greater than YPA, or even YPA and INT percentage, would indicate. But you don't have to be a particularly great QB to be better than Fitz. > There are a host of other things involved besides the single best measurement. Agreed.

In an earlier discussion, you stated (correctly) that yards per attempt was the best single measurement of QB effectiveness. A better measurement than (for example) QB rating. If you've changed your view about yards per attempt, please explain why. As for the statistical measurements C. Biscuit has chosen: each is flawed. Completion percentage is flawed because it unfairly rewards QBs who dump the ball off a lot, while unfairly punishing QBs who attempt lower percentage, higher reward passes. Yards per game is flawed because it unfairly rewards QBs who play for pass-happy coaches, while unfairly punishing QBs who play for more run-oriented teams. Fitz plays for a pass-happy coach (Gailey); artificially inflating his yards per game. Fitz attempts a lot of shorter passes; thereby artificially inflating his completion percentage. Over the last two years, Fitz's yards per attempt has not been artificially inflated, and more or less accurately indicates the quality of his play. And yes, Fitz's yards per attempt has been significantly lower than Cutler's.

> If there are four tiers, Cutler is a second tier and Fitzy a third. That sounds about right.

Good article. It makes a strong case that Cutler has significant flaws.

The fact that he stopped the backward movement of the ball does not prove that he had "control." A ball starts coming out of a player's hands. (I.e., he loses control.) As it's slipping out, the player shoves the ball forward. A play like that is a fumble, not a forward pass!

"Passing" isn't just the ability to throw the ball a long distance (which Losman could do well). It's also the ability to throw the ball with consistent accuracy (which Losman wasn't exactly noted for). Even for Losman's shorter passes, guys would often have to reach down to their shoestrings or jump wildly in the air in order to catch his throws. Rob Johnson was a much more accurate passer than Losman, and had a good, strong arm as well. If he'd had merely average pocket presence and sack-avoidance technique, he could have had a very good career. There are a number of necessary conditions for being an NFL quarterback: a certain minimum level of physical size and strength, a certain level of toughness, a certain level of sack avoidance ability, etc. If a guy fails to meet even one of those necessary conditions, he will fail as a quarterback. But assuming he meets all the minimal qualifications, then his accuracy as a passer will represent a huge component of his overall NFL success. I think that's what Billsrhody was getting at in his earlier post.

If David Lee's optimism is justified, Fitz could become a very good quarterback. Accuracy is the main thing he's missing. Arm strength would help too; but he'd benefit a lot more from increased accuracy than from increased arm strength. My guess is that there's only a 10% or less chance of Lee's optimism being justified. But if it is, that would be awesome! The Bills are a quarterback away from being a very good team.

I agree that Bledsoe would have done well behind this line. Another QB about whom that could be said is . . . Rob Johnson. If you gave Rob Johnson enough time to throw, he was deadly. Granted, Rob Johnson's definition of "enough" time was a little different than most other QBs'. On the other hand, Rob Johnson had Losman-like arm strength and first-rate accuracy. He was also fairly mobile. His deep throws were things of beauty; as were his intermediate throws. If you combine a highly sack-prone QB with a bad OL, you get the most sacked QB in NFL history. (Which is what happened.) If you combine that same sack-prone QB with a very good OL, you'll still have a sack problem. But it will be only a problem. Not the career-destroying catastrophe the Bills witnessed in the late '90s and early 2000s. If you could combine the good things about Rob Johnson (physical tools + throwing accuracy) with the good things about Fitz (fast and good decision-making, good sack avoidance), you'd have one awesome QB!

Thanks, Bill, for the compliments. I feel the same way about you. The point I was making earlier is that I want a coach to have a killer instinct. For example, a defensive coordinator's goal on every possession should be to create either a turnover or a three-and-out. If he says, "oh, I'll let them have a few first downs here and there, as long as I don't give up the big play," then he's probably drifting away from the killer mentality he needs to have. Maybe a defensive coordinator concludes that the most likely way of forcing a three-and-out is to rush four and drop seven back into coverage. Maybe having that many in coverage allows you to play tight coverage, because the guys covering have help over the top. If rushing four and dropping seven back into coverage moves you closer toward your goal of shutting down their offense--a three-and-out--then do it! But if a defensive coordinator rushes four, drops seven back into coverage, and has them play soft coverage, it might be time for him to ask himself what he's doing with his life. I realize the above is drifting a little away from the original subject. To return to that subject: I agree that two passes and a run would have been better than three straight passes. I like Gailey's aggressive mentality, but there's room for that aggression to be honed. > Look, you, Badolbilz, KTD, and many others were ahead of me wrt the rule changes, and the impact it would have on this sport. You just went up a notch in my book. I'd much rather have a conversation with someone who's aware his perspective has evolved over time, than with someone who pretends he's always been right about everything. That being said, you're right a lot more often than you're wrong. You may know this already. But for the benefit of those who don't: back in the '60s, the AFL was considered a wild, unpredictable, unconventional league. Teams would do crazy, unheard-of stuff. They'd sometimes throw the ball in first down. On third down, teams would often employ the so-called "nickle" defense. There were three and even four WR sets! The AFL was was a wild and crazy place--at least by NFL standards. Some might look at the above, and say something along the following lines. "Over the last few decades, the league has evolved to become progressively more passing-oriented. Therefore it will continue to become even more focused on passing over the next decade or two." But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that back in the '60s, the AFL was characterized by flexible thinking; whereas the NFL was characterized by more rigid and formulaic thinking. Logically, if passing the ball on third down is a good strategy, why wouldn't it also be a good strategy on first down? Why did teams feel like they had to run on first down, when that's exactly what their opponents were expecting them to do? Flexible thinking is this: you forget everything you "know," and start with a blank piece of paper. Then you ask yourself, "What would happen if I did X? What would happen if I did Y?" Don't worry about whether something has or hasn't been done before. Only worry about whether it's logical--whether it moves you closer toward your goal of destroying the other team.

Very solid post!

I tend to agree with this--as long as there's a QB worth taking. Also, I do not want to hear, "all the good QBs were gone by the time we picked, so we took a non-QB instead." Instead, what I want to hear is, "All the good QBs would have been gone by the time we picked. Which is why we traded up. Now we have the QB we want."

I'll agree with this. Fitz played a pretty good game, but was far from elite.

Coaches tell their players not to get too high after a win, or too low after a loss. As a fan, I've adopted that attitude myself. After the loss to the Jets, I thought about both the positives (offensive line, Spiller) and negatives (pass defense, Fitz). Both Fitz and the pass defense looked better than they did against the Jets. But there are still weaknesses in both areas. A team like the Patriots might be better able to exploit those weaknesses than the Browns were. As others have pointed out, Gilmore and Aaron Williams are young players--guys who may well improve with time and experience. Odds are we haven't yet seen either player's ceiling. I expect the pass defense to be better in the latter part of the season than it is right now.

> A good paper - whether it's delivered online or at your door - is worth a few bucks a week. Agreed. But what does that have to do with the Rochester D & C?