Orton's Arm

Let's say you have a running back who's carrying a slippery ball. No one touches the RB. Nevertheless, the ball starts to slip out of his hands. As the ball comes out, he uses his fingers and hands to shove it forward a few yards. Something like that is a fumble, not a forward pass. The reason this is the case is to prevent players from disguising their fumbles as forward passes. That rule also applies to QBs.

There's a difference between using a first round pick on a RB who's expected to be a truly special player, versus using a first round pick on a RB who's merely expected to be solid. Thus far Spiller has played like a special player. Leading up to the 2010 draft, a number of draft experts felt he was the best player in that draft. Despite my preference to eschew the RB position in the first round, I was willing to take a wait-and-see approach with Spiller. Over the last 40 years, the Bills have used 25% of their first picks of the draft on RBs: 10 RBs were chosen during that time. Most of those RBs were nothing special: Antowain Smith, Willis McGahee, and Marshawn Lynch are recent examples of this. A team shouldn't a take a RB in the first round, unless said RB convinces you he's a significantly better football player than alternatives at other positions. Over the years, the Bills seem to have had the opposite bias: a preference for taking RBs and DBs unless a player at some other position was clearly better. (And sometimes they'd take RBs and DBs even then.) That preference for RBs (short careers) and DBs (first-contract-and-out) is one of the reasons why, over the last 40 years, the Bills have so often failed to build a core of talented players.

Good post! I'd like to further discuss one of your points: > 9) Two incomplete passes with 2:12 to go in the 1st half, a 7 point lead, and getting the ball in the second half??? If Jauron was the coach, the play call would have been run, run, run, punt. Or at most run, run, pass, punt. Jauron would have played cautiously. He would have played to protect the lead. Gailey was trying to take a little lead and turn it into a bigger lead. That may or may not have been overly aggressive of him. But if a coach is going to err, I'd rather him err on the side of being too aggressive; as opposed to not aggressive enough. If the Patriots' offense had had the ball with two minutes to go before the end of the half, would Belichick have contented himself with run, run, run, punt? Or would he have tried to go for the jugular? You could point out that the Patriots have a better offense than the Bills, which is perfectly true. The better you are, the more aggressive you can afford to be. But the way to become good is to stop thinking defensively, and to start thinking in terms of dictating to the other team. The Bills' offensive players need to get it in their heads that if they get the ball with a reasonable amount of time left in the half, they are expected to drive down the field and score.

Fitz is very good at making the right decision, and making it quickly. That's his single biggest strength. Chan Gailey developed an offense which brilliantly capitalizes on that strength. Fitz's biggest weakness is his inability to throw the ball with consistent accuracy. That weakness has always been evident, including in the Patriots game. However, the Patriots lacked the right defensive personnel, or the right defensive scheme, to mask Fitz's strengths while accentuating his weaknesses. I enjoyed the win over the Patriots. But I also know that Ryan Fitzpatrick will never again put up over nine yards per attempt against that team. That confluence of a rash of Patriots' injuries to defensive players, plus a new Chan Gailey offense, plus Bill Belichick being uncharacteristically out-coached, will never happen again.

Yes, Fitz's numbers from that game look good. If you're going against the second-worst pass defense in NFL history--a defense riddled with injuries--and if you're using a new style of offense with which defensive coordinators have yet to catch up, elite numbers do not necessarily mean elite play. Add to that the fact that Fitz's receivers gained him 85 YAC yards on just three plays, and you have a recipe for a QB's numbers to look better than the quality of his play would warrant.

For most of his career, Peyton Manning had guys like Marvin Harrison, Dallas Clark, Reggie Wayne, Edgerrin James, and others to whom he could throw the ball. I find it difficult to believe that Matt Schaub's receiving threats were so much better than Peyton Manning's, that you can't meaningfully compare the two QBs' numbers. The quality of Tom Brady's receiving threats has varied greatly over the years. There have been years when he's had one of the best groups of receiving threats in the league. Other years he's had nobody in particular at WR. During years when he has a good group of receiving threats, he'll typically put up much higher yards per attempt stats than in years when his receiving threats are weak. In Tom Brady's third best season he averaged 7.9 yards per attempt. In his fourth best season he averaged 7.8 yards per attempt. Those numbers are comparable to Matt Schaub's career average of 7.8 yards per pass attempt. > Secondly, I don't think it is fair to take that win over the Patriots away from Fitzpatrick. Tom Brady threw four INTs that day, which means he played well below his usual level. Nevertheless, Brady played well above the level at which Fitz played. Fitz threw at least as many interceptable passes as did Brady. But the Bills' secondary did a much better job of catching interceptable passes than did the Patriots' secondary. The Bills as a team made up for the fact that they didn't receive the same level of play from the QB position that the Patriots received. > You found one guy you'd rather have in the tier above, and he did beat the Patriots in 2009. Any other? Yes. In 2010, Alex Smith averaged 6.9 yards per attempt. Fitz averaged 6.8. In 2011, Alex Smith averaged 7.1 yards per attempt, compared to 6.7 for Fitz. Josh Freeman's career average is 6.8 yards per attempt--the same as Fitz's best season. Andy Dalton and Christian Ponder have career averages of 6.7 yards per attempt--not bad for a couple of guys two games into their second years. Jake Locker has a career average of 7.4 yards per attempt. He's another guy I'd rather have than Fitzpatrick.

Bashing begins in 3, 2, 1, . . . > I'd take Fitzpatrick over every QB in his level and the one above. That means you'd take Fitzpatrick over Matt Schaub. Yards per pass attempt is to quarterbacks as yards per rushing attempt is to running backs. Over the course of his career, Matt Schaub has averaged 7.8 yards per pass attempt. Peyton Manning's career average is 7.6 yards per attempt, and Tom Brady's average is 7.5 yards per attempt. Ryan Fitzpatrick's average is 6.3 yards per attempt. In 2010 and 2011, Fitzpatrick averaged 6.8 and 6.7 yards per attempt respectively. The idea that Ryan Fitzpatrick is in the same zip code as Matt Schaub is non-credible. > I believe that Mark Sanchez is the only other QB in that level and the one above that has beat the Patriots. When the Bills beat the Patriots, it was largely because of the four turnovers the defense created. Also because of the fact that the Patriots had an injury-riddled defense which was one of the worst in NFL history. The Patriots' defense dropped what could have been fairly easy INTs. Fitz played better than his usual on that particular day. But "better than Fitz's usual" is not a very high standard. > I find it baffling that there is such a hate for Fitzpatrick. I think Fitz is a good guy, and I wish he was a good QB. I really do. But he isn't.

I was surprised at how much bigger and stronger Kyle Williams looked compared to Andy Levitre. Kyle is definitely a beast!

Good post, and I agree with what you've written. I'd like to offer my own two cents on the above. During our September and October home games, and almost all of the away games, the weather is good enough to create a big opportunity for the passing game. The Bills need a good QB + passing attack to take advantage of that opportunity, and a good pass defense to prevent opponents from doing the same. Then the weather will turn colder and windier in Orchard Park. There will still be opportunities for passing--but you need a stronger armed QB to take advantage of them. Even with a QB like that, your passing opportunities will lessen--forcing the Bills and their opponents to rely more heavily on the running game. Late in the year there may be game when snow covers the field. That creates still more opportunities for the running game; because the slippery, snowy surface affects defenders more than it affects the running back. To optimally deal with this, you need a team a lot like the early '90s Bills. An accurate, strong-armed QB (Jim Kelly), a very good OL, a good running game (Thurman), good receiving threats (Reed and Lofton, and others), and a good defense. The early '90s team's biggest lack was the need for a Fred Smerlas or a Ted Washington at NT. While I would like to see upgrades to the Bills' receiving corps, this Bills' team's greatest lack is the fact that its QB is neither strong-armed nor accurate. The lack of arm strength is a problem on windy days, or when Fitz is attempting to make certain kinds of throws. The lack of accuracy is a problem always. Compare the Bills' offense to the Patriots' offenses during the seasons when the Patriots won Super Bowls. A healthy groin Stevie Johnson is a better #1 WR than Deion Branch. Chandler seems to be at least as good a receiving threat as whatever TE the Patriots had back then. The Bills' RBs are better at catching passes out of the backfield than Antowain Smith or the Patriots' other RBs had been. The Patriots had the advantage in terms of #2 and #3 WR. Perhaps Graham will fix one of the Bills' WR positions. Overall, I don't see a huge difference between the Bills' receiving threats and those of the early - mid 2000s Patriots. At least thus far, the Bills look like they have a better OL than those Patriots teams had. As for RBs: the Bills have a guy who's done something not equaled since Jim Brown in 1963. The Patriots had Antowain Smith. There is no comparison between the two teams' running backs. Nor, unfortunately, is there any comparison between the two teams' QBs. But if you could put a young Tom Brady on this Bills offense, we'd have a better offensive unit than the Patriots had back when they won their three Super Bowls.

Considering that McKelvin is no longer even the starting nickleback, Bill's criticism of McKelvin the DB is amply justified. McKelvin the punt returner looks good, but you don't take a guy 11th overall to return punts. You mentioned Bill's slight preference for using early picks on offensive linemen over DBs or RBs. Okay, maybe it's not so slight! With the exception of a few games here or an eight game stretch there, the Bills haven't had an offensive line ever since Kent Hull and Jim Ritcher hung up their cleats. As a result of the lack of an OL, the running game would often falter, and the quarterback would get killed. In 2005, after the Raiders game, Kelly Holcomb noted that he'd never before experienced pass protection that bad. Strong words, considering Holcomb was something of a connoisseur of bad offensive line play. Back in the '90s, Rob Johnson became the most sacked quarterback in NFL history. IIRC, he took sacks at about twice the rate of the second-most sacked QB. Much of that was Johnson's fault, obviously. But the quality of that OL's pass protection was lacking at best. After years or even decades of watching your team's OL get dominated, a guy like Bill from NYC will eventually say, "Enough is enough. Fix the offensive line. I don't care how you do it. Just do it." The OL now looks fixed. I love the way Glenn has been playing.

Thanks for the link. I read the lengthy explanation about DVOA. Clearly, a lot of intelligent and logical thought has gone into creating that particular statistic. However, I was a bit disappointed to see they didn't provide the actual formula used to calculate DVOA. Without seeing the actual formula, I can't know whether some of my concerns about DVOA are valid or misplaced. For example: if a QB plays behind a bad offensive line, then odds are he'll pass for fewer yards per play than would have been the case, had those offensive linemen been Pro Bowl caliber. This means that under most measurement systems, including my favorite (yards per attempt), QBs who play behind bad offensive lines already get penalized, once, for something which isn't their fault. From what I gather, DVOA does not correct that problem. What it may be doing, instead, is adding another penalty for quarterbacks who play behind bad OLs (by blaming them for sacks). We all saw that Cutler plays behind a horrible OL. But does DVOA penalize him twice for that OL's shortcomings? If so, then that could be one possible explanation for why Cutler's DVOA is a lot worse than his yards per attempt. But I don't like playing that kind of guessing game. Not only do I want to know what the formula is for DVOA, I'd also like to know the specific numbers they used to calculate Cutler's (and other QBs') DVOAs. That way, I could see for myself that Cutler is strong in X and Y components of DVOA, but weak with respect to component Z. But with the numbers going into the formula being something of a mystery, and with the formula itself also a mystery, it's tempting to regard the results of said formula as mysterious. Mysterious doesn't necessarily mean wrong. I just wish I knew whether DVOA was shining a light on some flaw in Cutler's play not illuminated by yards per attempt. Or whether DVOA was heaping blame on Cutler's shoulders for the shortcomings of his teammates.

I hear you, and I don't disagree. On the other hand, if a WR quits on a route (thereby causing an INT), the QB is right to be livid. If the OL cant'/doesn't block anyone, thereby getting the QB killed, the QB whose brain is being damaged by all those hits has a right to feel a certain amount of anger toward his offensive linemen. You could come back with, "It's on Cutler to lead and inspire his teammates. If Cutler's offensive linemen and WRs don't look like they want to win, then that reflects on Cutler's leadership." There's some truth to that. But it's also the coach's job to motivate the team. More importantly, it's the players' job to play passionate football each and every week. If the Bears' current offensive supporting cast can't or won't do that, it's the GM's job to replace them with others who will. Cutler is a good quarterback, and the numbers reflect the fact that he's half a step below the Manning/Brady level. But if he's close to those two as a passer and as a quarterback, he's not necessarily close as a leader. Cutler seems to have the core trait needed to be a good leader: a passion for winning games. (At least he looked passionate to me.) Now he just needs to temper that passion with a little more emotional awareness.

Some in this thread have complained about Cutler's attitude. But lest we forget, Jim Kelly often took an aggressive attitude toward those of his teammates who messed up. He didn't wait until after he'd taken the Bills to the Super Bowl--or even to the playoffs--to adopt that kind of aggressive approach. Did he always handle himself exactly as he should have? Possibly not. But that didn't prevent him from being by far the best QB in Bills' history. Jeff George represented a completely different category of personality problem. George had all the talent in the world. George would sign with a new team, and for a while everything would go well. Practices would be nice and efficient, and George would look good. But then one day George would show up for practice with the same attitude kids have on the last day of school. He would accomplish little, and his lack of urgency would spread amongst his teammates. Sooner or later the coach would confront him; thereby inaugurating the beginning of a personal clash between George and the coach. Bad feelings would spread, and George would sometimes try to subtly undercut his coach's authority. Stuff like this is why Jeff George wasn't necessarily the kind of quarterback you want on your team, even though he had the potential for greatness. Say what you will about Jay Cutler, I have not heard anyone complain about him slacking off at practice, or about his encouraging anyone else to do the same. His personality flaws seem a lot more like Jim Kelly's than they do like Jeff George's.

> I've asked for explanations and data to back these claims, and have barely > gotten anything. Except for the guy who is talking about yards per reception. I have been talking about yards per pass attempt. I couldn't care less about yards per reception. Yards per pass attempt is the single best measurement of a QB's effectiveness. In the past, I thought the single best measurement was QB rating. But then it came to my attention that Kelly Holcomb has a career QB rating of 79.2; whereas John Elway's career QB rating is 79.9. I think Holcomb is underrated, but this is ridiculous! The problem with QB rating is that it takes completion percentage into account. A QB who completes two consecutive 5 yard passes will have a higher QB rating than a QB who goes 1/2 for 10 yards. Different QB ratings, but the same yards per attempt. If one QB emphasizes short, high percentage throws (Holcomb) and another emphasizes longer, lower percentage, higher reward throws (Elway), you can't get an apples-to-apples comparison using completion percentage. That's why you need yards per attempt. Kelly Holcomb has a career yards per attempt of 6.6; compared to John Elway's career yards per attempt of 7.1. Those two QBs were very different in terms of production. Yards per attempt shines a light on that difference in a way QB rating does not. (Incidentally, John Elway is the only franchise QB I've found, from any era, who has a career yards per attempt of less than 7.2.) According to the New York Times regression analysis I mentioned earlier, 80% of variation in teams' win/loss records can be explained by six variables: yards per pass attempt, yards per rushing attempt, and INT percentage. (The other three variables are the defensive analogs to those three.) Yards per pass attempt is three times as important as yards per rushing attempt or interception percentage. In his first year in Chicago, Cutler averaged a disappointing 6.6 yards per attempt. But then over the next three years, he averaged 7.6, 7.4, and 7.4 yards per attempt. Those numbers are in the Manning/Brady category. The fact he achieved such numbers without an offensive line, and with a second- or third-rate WR corps, is truly remarkable. Yards per attempt doesn't measure everything; and his comparatively high INT percentage pulls him out of the Manning/Brady category. But to suggest a comparision between Cutler and Fitzpatrick is absurd.

I've never bought into the idea that a QB should be given personal credit when his team wins, or should take the blame when his team loses. There were plenty of times when John Elway's teams went 7-9. With Dilfer at the helm, the Ravens went on a 15-1 stretch, including a Super Bowl win. Cutler's stats are not even remotely comparable to Fitz's. Let's start throwing numbers around to put things into perspective. Trent Edwards has averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of his career; and JP Losman has averaged 6.6 yards per attempt over the course of his career. At the other end of the spectrum, Peyton Manning has averaged 7.6 yards per attempt during his career; and Tom Brady's career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. Jay Cutler's career average of 7.3 yards per attempt is a lot closer to the Manning/Brady level than it is to the Losman/Edwards level. Cutler's high level of production is why he was worth two first round picks in a trade; whereas Losman is out of the league, and Edwards is struggling to remain on a roster. Now look at at Fitz. A career average of 6.3 yards per attempt, which is worse than either Edwards' or Losman's career average. In 2010 and 2011 Fitz averaged 6.8 and 6.7 yards per attempt--better than Losman or Edwards, but still nowhere near Cutler's career average. Cutler's 7.3 is still closer to Manning's 7.6 than it is to Fitz's 6.7 - 6.8. Some here have argued that interceptions are Cutler's downfall. Over his career, Cutler has thrown 91 INTs over 2583 pass attempts, for a INT percentage of . . . wait for it . . . 3.5%. Fitz has 68 career INTs over 1776 pass attempts, for a career INT percentage of 3.8%. In 2010 Fitz's career INT percentage was 3.4%, and in 2011 it was 4.0%. Peyton Manning's career INT percentage is 2.7%, and Brady's is 2.1%. While Cutler could be better at avoiding INTs, he's somewhat less INT-prone than Fitz. According to a regression analysis done by the New York Times, a QB's yards per attempt is three times as important as his INT percentage. (I can translate that into statistics-speak if anyone's interested.) On the one measure which matters most (yards per attempt) Cutler and Fitz are in vastly different quarterbacks. And for anyone who might be tempted to say that wins is the statistic that matters most: when you measure wins, you're measuring the quality of the team. Not the quality of the quarterback.

The difference between Cutler and Fitz is very significant, as I pointed out earlier in this thread. A career average of 7.3 yards for Cutler (borderline franchise QB territory), and a career average of 6.3 yards per attempt for Fitz (backup QB/out of the leage territory). During the last two seasons Fitz averaged 6.8 and 6.7 yards per attempt; thereby eliminating about half the gap between himself and Cutler. But even half of that gap is still very significant.

Thanks!

The contract wasn't the problem. During Bledsoe's first eight games in a Bills uniform, he looked like a Hall of Fame QB. Then Bill Belichick came to town and unveiled the solution to Bledsoe. After the ball is snapped, Bledsoe takes over a full second longer to see what Tom Brady sees. The solution to Bledsoe is therefore to send pressure up the middle. Make him do something he's not good at (making quick decisions). Rattle him. Once the solution to Bledsoe had been unveiled, he never looked like the same quarterback again. Losman had some good games in 2006. But then defensive coordinators began to find the solution to Losman: take away the long bomb, and make him beat you with his underneath attack. Once the solution to Losman had been found, he went from putting up somewhat credible starter numbers to a guy who's currently out of the league. Fitz's first five games of last season came before any team (except the Bengals) had identified the solution to him. That solution has now been found: before the snap, give a misleading impression of what the defense will actually do. After the snap, disrupt or tightly cover shorter routes, and dare Fitz to beat you with his intermediate and deep game. Now that the solution to Fitz has been identified, he will never again have a five game stretch like the one with which he started 2011.

The best single statistical measure for evaluating QB performance is yards per pass attempt. (For the same reason that yards per rushing attempt is the best single measurement of a RB's effectiveness.) Over his career, Cutler has averaged 7.3 yards per attempt. That's a very solid measurement, and puts him in borderline franchise territory. In 2010 Fitz averaged 6.8 yards per attempt; and he averaged 6.7 yards per attempt in 2011. Fitz's overall career average is 6.3 yards per attempt. At least baesd on Sunday's game, the Bears have one of the worst OLs, and one of the worst receiving corps, of any team in the league. If the Bills were to trade for Cutler, he would only have one of those two problems.

Good post. Just to add to what you've written: Fitz's hot start to last season was fueled by several factors: The Bills' defense's unsustainably high level of turnovers (as you mentioned) The fact that the Bills faced a lot of really bad pass defenses early in the year. The fact that defenses hadn't yet caught up to Chan's new style of offense. That began changing when the Bills faced the Bengals. Chan's new style of offense looked to me like an attempt to use Fitz's good decision-making to compensate for his lack of accuracy. To succeed in that particular offense, a QB had to make the right pre- and post-snap reads (which Fitz is usually good at). The throws themselves were typically not all that difficult.

He didn't come across that way to me. I saw the OP express agreement with the analysis expressed in an article. My own perspective is slightly different than the one expressed in the article. I think that Fitz is usually good at making decisions, even if he didn't look that way against the Jets. Where he falls short is his accuracy. But! If lack of arm strength was the main reason for that lack of accuracy, then you'd expect him to at least be accurate on shorter throws. One of the reasons Montana lasted until the third round was because he didn't have the world's strongest arm. But Montana was very accurate! Fitz is not, and has never been. Fitz's short throws are nowhere near Montana-like in accuracy; and neither are his intermediate or deep throws. Sure, Fitz's lack of arm strength may be exacerbating his lack of accuracy on deep throws, or on throws to the far sideline. But even if you could give Fitz a Mallett-like arm, he would not become an accurate QB.

I agree with the bolded. Throwing inaccurate, difficult-to-catch passes (2nd INT) has been a much bigger issue for him than getting his timing wrong (first INT).

The next time you express an opinion about something football-related, remind me to respond exactly like you have above.

Thanks for doing the work to back up your points. After reading your post, I feel a lot more comfortable with the decision to keep a kickoff specialist on the roster. Also, as you pointed out earlier, if Lindell goes down with an injury, Potter can take his place. And vice versa.

You say that if the Bills didn't have a kickoff specialist, they might be able to tackle guys short of the 20. Fair enough. But it stands to reason that there's a good amount of overlap between your punt coverage unit and your kickoff coverage unit. How impressive did the punt coverage unit look to you? Did you say to yourself,I want to see the Bills' punt/kickoff coverage unit asked to do more, because they've done such a good job with the responsibilities they already have?