Orton's Arm

I think that you and I are fairly similar. I'm here for the discussions, and am usually fairly busy with other things! > His TD percentage ain't bad. But he just doesn't pass enough to carry a team in this > league, and if he tried, his completion percentage would tank. It's probably asking too much for any one statistic to tell the whole story. Most of the stats we've been discussing can give at least some indication about whether a guy was productive while he was in there. But can he continue to produce as much, on a per-play basis, if he's the full-time starter? What happens after defenses adjust to his style of play? A well-designed, complex statistical model might shed some light on the above questions. But relatively simple stats, like yards per attempt or QB rating, will not. To return to the subject of Tebow: I personally feel that the main determinant of a QB's completion percentage is whether he's in an offense geared around a short passing attack. Dumping the ball off short is a very effective way for a QB to inflate his own completion percentage. I looked at Tebow's yards per attempt. He had a very good 8.0 yards per attempt in his rookie year; which fell to 6.4 yards per attempt in his second year. Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt. The statistics clearly show Tebow had a disappointing second year; and evidently the Broncos felt the same way. > I have no problem with looking at Y/A as a QB metric. I just don't think it should be > taken as the be-all, end-all of judging QB quality, because of the YAC thing. I can live with that. If someone wants to start citing what I'll call "adjusted yards per attempt" I certainly won't object. (I'm defining "adjusted yards per attempt" as yards per attempt minus yards after the catch.) But career data like that does not appear to be readily available. Further, I'm not 100% sold on the idea that yards per attempt is a worse stat than "adjusted yards per attempt" would be. I'd like to see data about QBs' career adjusted yards per attempt numbers before becoming fully sold. Until data like the above is compiled and made freely available, I think that yards per attempt represents the best available starting point in discussions about QB performance. But any statistic like that isn't going to tell the whole story.

You have helped expose one of the weaknesses of the yards per attempt stat. That stat does not punish QBs for taking a lot of sacks. And Johnson took a lot of sacks! Yards per attempt overstates the quality of Rob Johnson's play, because that stat doesn't illuminate the fact that Johnson was a sack waiting to happen. On the other hand, when Johnson wasn't being sacked or carted off the field, he was a very effective and accurate passer. His high yards per attempt stat correctly indicates that. If Johnson had been able to solve the whole "sack waiting to happen" thing, he had the throwing accuracy necessary to become a franchise QB. I could be wrong, but I think that after a certain point he took so much punishment that he lost the fire he'd had early in his career. The lesson here is that yards per attempt will overstate the quality of any QB who's a sack waiting to happen. > It's hard to quantify "franchise QB" but if I were to attempt it, I'd probably look at total yards (or yards per game). The problem with that measurement is that it rewards QBs who play on pass-happy offenses, while punishing those who play on run-oriented offenses. Fitz has put up similar yardage totals to Kelly. Does that mean Fitz is roughly as good as Kelly? Of course not! The offenses with which Kelly was associated were about 50/50 run/pass; whereas Fitz's offenses have been very pass-happy indeed! Kelly's yards per attempt is significantly higher than Fitz's. > I think the argument that a QB is often labeled a "franchise QB" after a SB win (however much the QB contributed) is a fair one. The problem with the above definition is that according to it, Trent Dilfer was a franchise QB, while Dan Marino wasn't. Football is a team sport. The credit for a win should never be assigned wholly to one player.

Thank for the well thought-out response. > I can't disagree that QB rating has its flaws. It's something to look at, but it's only one thing to look at. Agreed. The core problem with QB rating is that it takes completion percentage into account. That means it unfairly rewards QBs who emphasize the short passing game--like Holcomb--while unfairly punishing QBs like Elway who emphasize higher yardage throws. It's comparing apples to oranges. Yards per attempt gives a much more apples-to-apples comparison of Holcomb's and Elway's respective careers. > I'm questioning whether Y/A, which includes completion percentage, is really > the ultimate metric for judging the "franchise" quality of a QB? Or is it > just a combination of a stat reflecting his accuracy (completion percentage) > with a measure of the ability of his receivers to collect yards after catch? See above for my thoughts about completion percentage. I'll grant the validity of a point you made elsewhere--that there are many cases in which receivers pile up good YAC stats not because the QB hit them in perfect stride, but because of the receivers' own talents and efforts. Possibly, one could judge QBs on the basis of yards per attempt - yards after the catch. I would like to see QBs' career averages computed on that basis, side by side with a list of QBs ranked by yards per attempt. If you are aware of any websites which have complied these data, please let me know. But don't feel obligated to invest tons of time in a Google search for this. > My question is: if the YPA statistic really reflects the whole team - the quality of the > offensive line in allowing time to throw, the ability of the receivers to run after the > catch as well as the QB - isn't annointing a QB "Franchise" on the basis of YPA, just > equivalent to saying he's a quality QB playing on a quality team What you have described is a plausible possibility. As such, it's something which should be tested empirically. Empirical evidence which would support that possibility would consist of QBs who were themselves clearly playing at or near a franchise level, but who weren't generating good yards per attempt stats due to the failings of those around them. Another source of empirical evidence would be QBs who played at a mediocre level, but who had good yards per attempt stats due to the high quality of their teammates. Thus far, I have encountered very little of either category of empirical evidence. While all a quarterback's stats will be affected by the quality of his teammates, a quarterback's yards per attempt stat seems to be a fairly robust indicator of the quality of his individual performance. That said, I'll agree that John Elway's yards per attempt stat understates the quality of his play, and is indicative of the fact that he wasn't always surrounded with the world's best offensive talent. I do not necessarily object to the idea of taking into account the quality of QBs' offensive supporting casts, when looking at yards per attempt stats. (That said, yards per attempt comes a lot closer to indicating the true level of Elway's play than, for example, QB rating.)

I think we're doing a better job of communicating; though there are still some points of disagreement. But first the communicating part! > I also dunno about your definition of "franchise QB" -- nothing personal - it seems to be a > total "moving target" to most people to the point where I wince when I read the term. My definition of a "franchise QB" is a QB who has achieved a career average of at least 7.2 - 7.4 yards per pass attempt. Or, failing that, a guy who maybe had a rough start to his career, but who now consistently has seasons in the 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt range or better. In Fitz's best season he had 6.8 yards per attempt. (As compared to a career average of 6.5 yards per attempt for Trent Edwards.) The numbers which would convince me Fitz is a franchise QB just aren't there. Neither is the throwing accuracy. If the latter changes, so too will the former. But until that happens, Fitz will continue to fall firmly in my "non-franchise QB" category. > On a good day, Fitz has shown he certainly is capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady or any other QB in the league- I have very mixed feelings about the above statement. I would argue that the first time the Bills and the Patriots met, the Bills' defense had a much better day than did the injury-riddled Patriots defense. Brady had a very bad day, at least by his standards. Even so, I'd argue that his overall quality of play that day was significantly higher than the quality of Fitz's play. If the Bills won anyway, it was because the Patriots' defenders dropped passes which should have been intercepted; while Bills' defenders were very good at catching interceptable passes. Also, Fred Jackson had a much better day than his Patriots' equivalents. The Patriots had the better quarterback, but the Bills had the better team. The problem with trying to repeat the above strategy is that next time, Tom Brady won't throw four interceptions. > But rattle Marcia, pressure him, knock him down, the Pats offense starts to look human. The above is true, at least to an extent. But even a "human"-looking Brady will still (typically) produce a lot of points. > The Giants pass defense isn't bad, but they really run an OL-centered defense > just as we plan to under Wannstache. And IMO that's really the key - having an > OL that's good enough to generate heavy pressure just with the front four. I like your idea of having an OL good enough to generate pressure with the front four. An even better idea would be to have a DL that's good enough to generate pressure with the front four! On a more serious note, Bill Walsh once said that the key to winning games is to have a good pass rush with your front four in the fourth quarter. (Which requires depth along the DL.) I completely agree that, if you can get a good pass rush with just four guys, it frees you up to drop the other seven back into coverage. And means the QB won't have much time to do anything before he has to get rid of it. I'm excited about the direction in which the Bills' defense is heading. We won't win the Super Bowl without significantly upgrading the level of play we're getting from the QB position. But we can win a lot more games in 2012 than we won in 2011.

> In debate terms, this is known as reductio ad absurdum or popularly sometimes a "straw man" > - the person with whom one is trying to have a discussion, rather than entering into a reasonable > discussion of the point at hand, attempts to assert absurd claims that you have not made then argue > against them. False. I was not trying to define your position. I was defining mine. > The point is that the Bills 4 interceptions were not a "fluke" in the sense of Brady just > having an off day. They were the result of strong pressure on the line combined with good > heads-up play by our secondary. I'll grant that there were elements of skill and strategy involved in making those INTs happen. But we have agreed that if the Bills were to play the Patriots ten times, Brady would not be intercepted a total of 40 times. (Or anywhere close.) The point here being that the skill and strategy you've described yielded much better results on that day than could be expected on a typical day. Had last year's Bills team played last year's Patriots team ten times, then a typical game would have involved Brady having 0 - 1 INTs. The Patriots' defense would have been much less riddled with injuries than the defense Fitz faced in that first game. And the typical result would have been a Patriots' win--by a healthy margin. > I believe any team on any given Sunday can force Brady into a similar bad day (whether or > not it involves 4 INTs is beside the point) by successfully employing a similar strategy - > relentless pressure up front, take away the middle of the field with good coverage, and > read/jump his routes like Wilson did. Whether it involves four INTs is exactly the point. Tom Brady moved the ball very well in that first game when he wasn't being intercepted. Much more effective, in fact, than Fitz was against the Patriots' decimated, injury-riddled defense. It was those four interceptions, and those alone, which allowed the Bills to (barely) compensate for Brady's much greater productivity on non-turnover-related plays. If you want to argue that the Bills' defense didn't have the horses to fully execute the strategy you envision, or that they could have called some plays differently, then fine. But even in the Super Bowl, Brady was effective until late in the game. (At which point he was probably playing with an injury.) The Giants' defense clearly had the horses they needed, and adopted a very solid anti-pass defensive strategy. The point here being that even with the right horses, and with the right strategy, there's only so much you can do to slow down the Patriots' offense. Fortunately for the Giants, they also had a franchise QB capable of going toe-to-toe with Brady. If the Patriots and Giants were to play each other ten times, the Giants would probably win most of those games. The two teams would have roughly comparable QBs, and the Giants would have the better pass defense. You need to have a very good pass defense and a franchise QB to pull ahead of a team like the Patriots. At least on paper, the Bills only have one of those two things.

If last year's Bills team was to play last year's Patriots team ten times, do you think the Bills would come away with 40 interceptions? I don't. Do you think that last year's Bills defense ever had a realistic chance of attaining 64 interceptions over the course of the season? Or that Tom Brady was in danger of having 64 interceptions over the course of the 2011 season? If it's totally unrealistic to suppose that Brady could be intercepted 64 times over the course of a season, or that the Bills defense could attain 64 interceptions, or that the Bills could intercept Brady 40 times over the course of 10 games, then that means the 4 interceptions they achieved in that one game were a statistical anomaly. They beat the Patriots; but did not beat them in a way which was sustainable over the course of an entire season.

Good post, and I appreciate the effort you put into writing it and finding good links to support it. > Er, you do realize that Tom Brady did not achieve this milestone of yours until his 4th year as starter (including a SB win)? Valid point. > And that he has achieved it 6 of his 10 years as (healthy) starter, overall? His career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. I feel that for a QB to be considered franchise, one of the following should be true. 1) He should have a career average of between 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better. 2) You should be able to count on him for 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt for the upcoming season based on the last several years of data. Tom Brady meets both criteria; and there is no question that, statistically, he is a franchise QB. > Does he become "not a franchise QB" in the years where he dips below this magic number? Of course not. It's expected that QBs will have good years and bad years. > The traditional Y/A statistic includes YAC, meaning the statistic can be heavily skewed by > the quality of the receiver as much as the quality of the quarterback. True. But a QB can affect YAC. Joe Montana, for example, would hit his receivers in perfect stride; setting them up for good YAC. That said, I'll grant that YAC rewards QBs for having good receivers. It's hard to think of any passing statistics not subject to that flaw. > I don't think it's an accident that NE (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the > top 10 for YAC and NO (with their >7.2 Y/A QB) has 3 receivers in the top 15 for YAC. Part of that is because Tom Brady and Drew Brees are good at hitting their WRs in stride; setting them up for good YAC. That said, I'll agree that there have been years when the addition of a good receiving threat (such as Randy Moss or Gronkowski) has resulted in a noticeable increase in Tom Brady's yards per attempt. That isn't just because of good receivers getting more YAC than bad receivers. Good receivers also tend to get open more often, drop fewer passes, and make more tough catches than bad receivers would. > Y/A also reflects completion percentage since it's based upon passes attempted, which > again, has to do with the quality of the receivers as well as the quality of the quarterback. I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Let's say a given QB attempts nothing but 10 yard passes. In his first year, his completion percentage is 30%; which gives him a YPA of 3. In his second year, he continues attempting nothing but 10 yard passes, and increases his completion percentage to 70%. Now his yards per attempt is 7. It seems like any decent measurement tool should give him more credit for his second year than his first; which is exactly what yards per attempt does. I agree that YPA rewards QBs whose receivers make tough catches, while punishing QBs whose receivers drop passes. Almost every other statistical measurement of QB performance has the same flaw. > I'd be happy to see an authoritative, in-depth analysis to validate the Y/A > statistic as THE telling metric of a quality quarterback, I used to use quarterback rating as the most important statistical measure. Then it came to my attention that John Elway had a quarterback rating of 79.9, while Kelly Holcomb had a QB rating of 79.2. I have a higher opinion of Holcomb than most, but this is ridiculous! Then I looked at other statistical data, and found that Holcomb averaged 6.6 yards per attempt over the course of his career, while Elway averaged 7.1. Elway is the only franchise QB I've found so far who has a career average of less than 7.2 yards per attempt. On the other hand, every QB I've seen who has a career average of 7.4 yards per higher has been a franchise QB. These data are what convinced me that yards per attempt was the most useful statistical measurement of QB performance I was likely to get. (Though as you have pointed out, no statistical measurement tool is perfect.) The formula of NOAY/DB (mentioned in an article to which you'd linked) may have promise. But it too has flaws. QBs are assigned 100% of the blame for any sacks they take; thereby punishing QBs who play behind bad offensive lines. QBs are not given any credit for their receivers' YAC; thereby depriving QBs like Montana of any credit for the YAC they help create. I'm not saying these flaws are better or worse than those associated with yards per attempt.

> his is somewhat of a self fulfilling prophecy. If you win the SB and your QB > is not absolute garbage, suddenly he's a "franchise QB". I'll grant there may be a lot of people who use the phrase "franchise QB" in the way you've described. But that's not how I'm using it. My definition of a franchise QB is a guy who can consistently average 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better. Take Eli Manning for example. During his first five seasons in the league, he never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt. Those are not franchise numbers! But during the last three years, he's averaged 7.9, 7.4, and 8.4 yards per attempt. For comparison, his brother has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt. I'm not calling Eli a franchise QB because I'm reiterating the words of some talking head. I'm calling him a franchise QB because his numbers over the past three seasons bear no other interpretation. I'll grant that Eli didn't play at a franchise level in the regular season leading up to his team's first Super Bowl win. His below-franchise play is an important reason the Giants only went 9-7 during that regular season. But during the postseason he played at a higher level. A franchise level. A level which has subsequently become his new norm. > A QB don't do it by himself. He needs a supporting cast and a good coach. Agreed. Having a franchise QB is no guarantee of a Super Bowl win; as the Bills found with Kelly, the Dolphins with Marino, etc. But if you don't have a franchise QB, you are very, very unlikely to win the Super Bowl. > Who is the non "Franchise QB" that won in the last 10 years? Brad Johnson. And even there it was a case of Johnson having the best season of his career; which happened to coincide with the best season for the Bucs' defense. Prior to that, the Ravens won the Super Bowl without a franchise QB. To do that, they built one of the three best defenses in NFL history, a great offensive line led by a Hall of Fame-level LT in Jon Ogden, a great running game in the form of Jamal Lewis, and a very good TE in the form of Shannon Sharpe. Even their special teams were strong, and IIRC produced 10 points in what would otherwise have been a very close postseason game. Finally, the Ravens got lucky in that their postseason opponents were relatively weak. The Kerry Collins-led Giants team they faced in the Super Bowl was a much weaker Giants team than the one which won this past Super Bowl. > If the Bills win the SB this year, Fitz or Vince or Thigpen or Smith will be a "Franchise QB". Not to me. Fitz has to prove he can consistently average 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt or better for me to put the franchise label on him. For perspective: Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt, with his best season having been 7.2 yards per attempt. Peyton Manning has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt; and Tom Brady's career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. Fitz's best season is 6.8 yards per attempt. Let's not get the anointing oil out for Fitz just yet! (Or ever, unless he shows us significantly better numbers than he has thus far.)

> I don't care if Fitz can be an "upper echelon" QB. You should. Nine of the last ten Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise QBs. Roughly eight teams have franchise QBs. If you don't have a franchise QB, your team will win a Super Bowl once every 240 years. 10% chance of a team without a franchise QB winning it x 1/24 = 1 Super Bowl win per 240 years. > The Bills were averaging 28 points per game last season before everything went to crap. It would be great if they could keep that up over the course of several seasons. But they won't. The Bills faced a lot of bad pass defenses early in the year. Also, those defenses were unprepared for Gailey's new style of attack. Fitz will have to significantly improve his play if the Bills are to average 28 ppg over the course of the 2012 season.

You are being overly optimistic. During the game you described, the Patriots' defense was riddled with injuries; allowing the Bills to score many more points than the quality of Fitz's play deserved. Tom Brady uncharacteristically threw four interceptions. That's as many interceptions in one game as he'd thrown in the entire previous season. An event like that is unlikely to occur again. Despite the four interceptions, and despite the fact New England's defense was decimated by injuries, the Bills barely won that game. I'll grant that during this offseason, the Bills closed much of the distance between themselves and the Patriots. But there was a lot more distance which needed closing than that game made it seem. The Patriots have a very significant advantage over the Bills at the quarterback position. Until that changes, the Patriots are likely to win most of their games against us.

Agreed. It's also worth noting that in Trent Edwards' best season, he started 14 games and averaged 7.2 yards per pass attempt. In Fitz's best season, he averaged 6.8 yards per pass attempt. A franchise QB needs to have a career average of at least 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt. Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt, meaning he's well below franchise level (obviously). I'll grant that in the second half of last season, injuries to other players--and perhaps to Fitz himself--lowered his yards per attempt. But in the first half of the season, Fitz went up against some extremely poor pass defenses. Defenses which were clearly unprepared for the new style of offense Gailey had unveiled. If the numbers for the second half of 2011 understate the quality of Fitz's play, the numbers for the first half of the season overstate it. Relatively early in the 2011 season, Fitz went up against the Bengals. That was before most of the injuries to Buffalo's offense happened, and before the (alleged) injury to Fitz occurred. The Bengals defense was prepared for Gailey's new style of offense. Fitz had a bad game that day. That game is a harbinger of things to come--unless Fitz substantially improves the level of his play. Nine of the last ten Super Bowls were won by teams with franchise QBs. Fitz is a long way from being The Guy right now, and probably needs to become The Guy if the Bills are to get a Super Bowl win. If Fitz became a much more accurate passer than he is right now, he'd become The Guy.

Not true. Edwards averaged 7.2 yards per attempt in 2008; while starting 14 games. Losman averaged 7.1 yards per attempt in 2006, while starting 16 games. Losman had a 1.36 TD:INT ratio, as compared to a 1.1 ratio for Edwards. On the other hand, Losman was sacked on 11% of his dropbacks, as opposed to 6% for Edwards. I'm not a big believer in QB rating, but for whatever it's worth Edwards' QB rating for 2008 was slightly higher than Losman's for 2006. Edwards in 2008 was about twice as effective at avoiding sacks as Losman had been in 2006. Other than that, the statistics from the two seasons in question were roughly comparable. (With Losman's slightly better TD:INT ratio being offset by Edwards' slightly higher yards per attempt.) Of the two, Edwards gets the nod for having had the better season. It's also worth noting that Edwards' 7.2 yards per attempt in 2008 is 0.4 yards more than Fitz's best season. While I hope Fitz becomes the answer, he needs to significantly improve his game before that will happen.

I remember having read it in an article from back when Losman was drafted. Wannstedt was the Dolphins' coach until more than halfway through the 2004 season. Losman was drafted just prior to that season; making it perfectly natural for the coach of a divisional rival to comment on him.

I gave myself this name early in Edwards' career. It, um, seemed like a good idea at the time. "Why remain stuck with a lousy name when you can easily change it?" you might ask. That's a very good question! Maybe part of it's to remind myself that decisions have consequences, and that next time I should look before I leap. But also, part of me wants to hold off on changing my name until the Bills finally acquire The Guy at quarterback. Then I'll change my screen name to commemorate him. What I'm about to write represents the most illogical thinking I've done all month--maybe all year-so bear with me. But if I hold off on changing my name until The Guy appears, that might somehow make it more of an honor for me to name myself after him than if I went changing names all the time. And maybe, the short-term sacrifice of me being stuck with a lousy name like Edwards_Arm might make The Guy a tiny bit more likely to succeed. This way of thinking is very silly, I know!

Losman needed more than just a few more brain cells to become a decent QB. He also needed to become a lot more accurate on his short to intermediate passes. If it's a short pass, the receiver shouldn't have to bend down to his shoestrings, or leap wildly into the air, to catch it. To address the point made by Fitz's Beard: there's only so much you can blame on coaching. I personally am fairly accurate with short to intermediate passes, and I've never played organized football or received much (if any) coaching at all. If I can figure out how to accurately throw short passes on my own, then surely someone who throws a football for a multimillion dollar living ought to be able to do the same. Unless he lacks whatever skill set it is which allows someone to throw the ball accurately. Johnson clearly had the skill set necessary to be an accurate passer. No other Bills QB from the post-Kelly era has shown himself Johnson's equal in terms of passing accuracy. Unfortunately, Johnson was a sack waiting to happen. While most of the blame for that rests with Johnson, it's also worth noting that the Bills' offensive line was in bad shape in the late '90s. There's a reason why Bill from NYC is a strong proponent of drafting offensive linemen early. That reason is because he's seen plenty of Bills' quarterbacks get killed behind chopped liver lines. I don't want to dismiss the late '90s lines completely, because they were actually fairly decent at run blocking. But their usual quality of pass protection was a D at best. Not the worst lines the Bills have ever fielded, but bad enough! Johnson wasn't known as a sack waiting to happen either in college or in Jacksonville. But he had very good LTs blocking for him in both cases. Suppose the late '90s Bills had put together an offensive line that was so good that Bill from NYC said, "Okay, you guys can use first round picks on DBs now. The offensive line is fine." Would this have resulted in a successful career for Johnson? I don't claim to have the answer to that question, but find it intriguing to wonder about. Every Bills quarterback in the post-Kelly era has had enough positives to tantalize you, but not enough for him to be The Guy. Johnson had all the physical tools you hope to see in your quarterback, and was accurate to boot! But his pocket awareness was abysmal, and his sack-avoidance technique nonexistent. Doug Flutie was good at scrambling, and good at making the OL look better than it really was. But once the defense took away the short stuff, he had nothing left. Drew Bledsoe tantalized Bills fans for the first eight games here, only for Belichick to bring him crashing back to Earth. JP Losman had even better physical tools than Johnson--especially in terms of foot speed--but lacked both the brains and the throwing accuracy necessary to be a starting QB. Kelly Holcomb produced, despite a nonexistent offensive line, bad coaching, and an unreliable running game. Had it not been for a blown officiating call, he likely would have led the Bills to victory over the Patriots. In Foxboro, back when the Patriots were near their peak. But between his age and his arm strength (or lack thereof) he was never going to be The Guy. Ryan Fitzpatrick does a lot of things well, and you have to like the quickness and accuracy with which he reads defenses. Unfortunately, he is not (yet?) a particularly accurate passer. Unless he changes that, he will never be The Guy.

I would agree with this. To expand on what you've written: both Johnson and Losman had very strong arms and quick feet; with Losman's feet a bit quicker than Johnson's. On the other hand, Johnson was much more accurate as a passer than Losman, and better at seeing more than just his #1 target. Johnson could have been a very good quarterback, had it not been for the fact he was extremely weak when it came to anything sack-related. Weak at sensing pressure. Weak at knowing where in the pocket he was supposed to move to, to reduce said pressure. Weak at having a clock in his head. Other than the sacks, Johnson was hands-down a much better quarterback than Losman. It wasn't even close. Even with the sacks, I'd still take Johnson over Losman if I had to choose between the two. Over the course of his career, Johnson averaged 7.2 yards per pass attempt. That number overstates how good he was as a player, because it doesn't take into account all those sacks. What that number means is that if you gave Johnson time in the pocket, he would do a much better job of eating up defenses than any other Bills quarterback in the post-Kelly era. That specifically includes Ryan Fitzpatrick, who has never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt in a season. If Johnson could have somehow been turned into something other than a sack waiting to happen, he would have been very good. As for coaching, Sam Wyche coached Joe Montana early in Montana's career. From 2004 - 2005, Wyche was Losman's QB coach. Wyche retired after the 2005 season. Mr. Weo mentioned that during 2006, the Bills didn't ask Losman to make many pass attempts. And seemed to do better when they reduced their reliance on the passing game. He's right about that. But that's only one of the two components of the simplification of the Bills' offense which occurred in 2006. An article I'd read a while back described the other. A reporter had interviewed an NFL coach; who'd said that the Bills' schemes and plays were greatly simplified to accommodate Losman's mental limitations.

> When it comes to the offensive side of the ball, I will take Wanny's word with some skepticism. Skepticism why? Wannestedt spends every single working day trying to figure out how to beat opposing quarterbacks. For quarterbacks, Wannestedt is the enemy. If Wannestedt thinks a QB like Losman will be a weak opponent, that's well worth knowing. Especially when it turns out Wannestedt was 100% right! > After the Bills drafted Edwards, perceived QB guru Bill Walsh called the Bills and told Marv they got a "good one". Good point. It might be that anti-endorsements of a player, such as Wannestedt's of Losman, tend to be more reliable than endorsements, such as Walsh's for Trent Edwards. > If you had watched any of Losman's game while he was at Tulane you would know he had to scramble just to stay alive. Edwards also had to scramble just to stay alive, because his offensive line at Stanford was abysmal. One of the main reasons Edwards wasn't taken in the first or second round was because Edwards hadn't proved enough as a pocket passer to deserve first round status. Neither had Losman; who was taken in the first round anyway due to his physical gifts. > Coming out of college, JP was considered "raw", and would take a few years to develop. Ryan Leaf was also considered "raw" coming out of college; whereas Peyton Manning was considered more "polished" and "NFL-ready." However, there were those who felt Leaf had the higher "upside" due to his arm strength and other physical gifts. It was implied that Manning was the better quarterback for a team which wanted immediate gratification; whereas Leaf was the better pick for a team which had taken a longer term view. I cannot remember the last time a first round QB was described as "polished" and "NFL-ready" only to turn out to be a bust. Nor can I remember a first round quarterback who, having been described as "raw," went on to have a great career. Losman fit the profile of a standard-issue first round bust. > In his second year, he was thrust into the starter's position. That was a disaster waiting to happen. Why? Losman had his whole rookie year to learn the playbook in a relatively low pressure situation. He also had the chance to practice, both before his injury occurred and after he'd recovered. Going into his second year, he was appointed the starter, and asked to run the same offense he'd spent his rookie year learning. It soon became obvious that Losman could not succeed in a normal offense; but only in one specifically tailored to his mental limitations. (Such as the offense the Bills employed in 2006.) > Are you sure you are not mixing your players up? Yes. The Turk/Jauron thing you described is unrelated to the simplification of the Bills' offense in 2006.

Maybe I shouldn't be, but I'm surprised there's still so much pro-Losman sentiment on this site. The Bills' other first round busts--such as McCargo, Maybin, etc.--generally don't receive that kind of positive attention or favorable "what if?" scenarios. Immediately after the 2006 draft, Dave Wannestedt said he wouldn't have taken Losman with the last pick of the seventh round. At the time, many on this site criticized him for that remark. Wannestedt has more knowledge of football in his pinky than most people here have, period. This is why he realized that Losman had not proven himself a good pocket passer in college, and was very unlikely to become one in the NFL. There are some who wave the word "coaching" around as though the word is a magic wand which can make a player's mental shortcomings disappear. That's like waving the phrase "strength training" around like a magic wand while explaining why the 5'6", 120 pound offensive lineman you just drafted is destined to become a Pro Bowl player. I've read that after the snap, Tom Brady processes information a full second faster than Drew Bledsoe had. There's a very sharp limit to the amount coaches can do to affect that. Neither Tom Brady nor Joe Montana had exceptional physical gifts. Montana lasted until the third round due in large part to his lack of arm strength. Brady's arm was nothing special either. And I've read that he lost a foot race to Drew Bledsoe! What made Brady and Montana special was their ability to throw the ball accurately, and their ability to process information quickly. Losman was the opposite of that. He had great physical gifts, but was not accurate, and not good at anything relating to information processing or the other mental aspects of the game. The Bills had to run a very simplified offense in 2006 to accommodate his mental limitations.

> Edwards has an arm. That would be me. > I agree with jboys, if he'd played in a better offensive system with good coaching > and a decent OL giving him time, he could possibly have become a serviceable NFL QB. > Someone on the level of a Sanchez, perhaps, or a Cutler. Sanchez yes, Cutler no. Both Trent Edwards and Mark Sanchez have averaged 6.5 yards per attempt over the course of their respective careers. This, despite the fact that Sanchez has played behind a significantly better offensive line, and had a better overall supporting cast, than the one Edwards had. Jay Cutler has averaged 7.3 yards per attempt over the course of his career; and is a much better quarterback than either Edwards or Sanchez. To put Cutler's average into perspective, Ryan Fitzpatrick has averaged 6.8 and 6.7 yards per attempt these past two seasons. Fitzpatrick is better than Edwards or Sanchez, but has not (yet?) shown himself to be as good as Cutler.

Very good post! I'd also like to thank hplarrm for having written from the heart. Just to add to this discussion, it's interesting to see how the media has handled the shooting of Trevon Martin. The media clearly wants this to have been a white man shooting a black man, even though Zimmermann is Latino. The media wants Trevon Martin to have been a child, even though he'd reached physical maturity and had attained a much greater level of physical strength than most adult males. The media wanted Zimmermann to have been a racist, and in one instance selectively edited what he'd said to a 911 dispatcher to make his non-racist words appear racist. The media wants to use this incident to stir up trouble between the races, and to have self-defense rights taken away. The real story here isn't about race, or Florida's "stand your ground law," or overzealous members of neighborhood watch. The real story is about the media, its credibility, and its bias. In the absence of a credible media, democracy cannot function. A media capable of lying to us for political gain in this instance is capable of lying for political gain in any instance.

It's saying significantly more than "you need to score more points than the other team." The Bucs got very high quality play from the QB position in 2002. Call it a statistical outlier if you like. Say that Brad Johnson got lucky, and put up better numbers that year than in previous or subsequent years. Fine. But the bottom line is that their Super Bowl win was the result of Pro Bowl QB play + the best defense in 2002. The Bucs are frequently held up as an example of a team which won despite having an average QB. As an example for other teams (such as the Bills) to potentially follow. There are basically two options here. Option 1: obtain an average or slightly above-average QB. Hope that he gives you a much better year than usual. Hope that the QB's one good year happens to overlap with a very good year from your defense. This is the path the Bucs chose, and it worked for them. Option 2: obtain a QB who will give you very good play every year. Then, you build a good supporting cast around him. That way you give yourself many years' worth of chances for everything to all come together into a Super Bowl win.

To address your first point: in 2001, Tom Brady had 413 pass attempts. Drew Bledsoe was the starter for part of the year too, and he had 66 pass attempts during that regular season. That's a total of 479 pass attempts between the two of them. In 2003, Brady started all 16 games, and had 527 pass attempts. The Patriots were slightly more pass-heavy in 2003 than they'd been in 2001. In both 2001 and in 2003, their offense depended far more heavily on the passing attack for success than on the running game. To put those numbers into context, J.P. Losman had 429 pass attempts in the 2006 season, while starting all 16 games. Re. Brad Johnson: it's beside the point whether his good TD/INT ratio for the 2002 season was the result of skill or luck. The bottom line is that the Bucs received very good production from the QB position in the year they won the Super Bowl. Anyone who points to the 2002 Bucs as a team which won despite mediocre QB play is making an inaccurate statement. It is inaccurate to state that Eli "was mediocre until he won the SB." He began playing at a high level in the postseason games leading up to that Super Bowl win. Had that not been the case, the Giants would likely have been eliminated from the playoffs.

I'd like to address some of the QBs whose names have been thrown around as "mediocre." Tom Brady. It could be pointed out that in 2001, Tom Brady only averaged 6.9 yards per pass attempt. His career average has since risen to 7.5 yards per attempt. However, even as of 2001, Brady played well enough to move Bledsoe permanently to the bench. The Patriots put Bledsoe on the trading block after the year was over. Also, the Patriots' offense relied (and continues to rely) far more heavily on the passing game than the running game. If the Patriots needed to drive 80 yards for a touchdown, you knew it wasn't going to be up to Antowain Smith to move them that 80 yards. Eli Manning. Eli's career got off to a slow start. In his first five years in the NFL, he never averaged more than 6.8 yards per attempt over the course of a season. That's respectable, but not special. But over the last three years, he's averaged 7.9, 7.4, and 8.4 yards per attempt. His brother Peyton has a career average of 7.6 yards per attempt. Eli Manning has spent the last three years playing at a Hall of Fame level. I'll grant that Eli didn't play at or near a Hall of Fame level during the season leading up to the Giants' first Super Bowl win. That's a big reason why the Giants only went 9-7, and squeaked into the playoffs. But during that postseason, Eli looked a lot like a Hall of Fame QB. For a few games, he played at the same level he would later attain on a more permanent basis. Terry Bradshaw. Terry Bradshaw averaged 7.2 yards per attempt over the course of his career. Admittedly, he had a very talented supporting cast, including two Hall of Fame WRs, a ridiculously good OL, and a great running game to take the pressure off the passing attack. On the other hand, the rules were less friendly to the passing game back in the '70s than they are today. Even with today's rules, 7.2 yards per pass attempt is still considered at or near what one would expect from a franchise QB. Brad Johnson. Brad Johnson averaged 6.7 yards per attempt during his 17 year career. That average is solid and respectable, but not special. However, he had a Pro Bowl year the year the Bucs won the Super Bowl. Granted, his average that year was 6.8--not much above his usual standards. What that made that year special for him was that he threw 22 TDs and only 6 INTs, while playing behind a mediocre offensive line. The Bucs were also aided by the relative weakness of their postseason opponents. (Jeff Garcia and the 49ers in the divisional round, Donovan McNabb and an incomplete Eagles team in the NFC Championship Game, Rich Gannon and an aging Raiders team in the Super Bowl.)

If you want a slash threat, why not use Vince Young? I'll grant that I haven't heard much about Young being used at receiver. But he's a much better quarterback than Brad Smith. Also Vince Young is one of the fastest and most mobile QBs in the league. Vince Young is going to make the final roster anyway, so using him as a slash option saves a roster spot. A roster spot which could be used on a young, developmental prospect such as Corp or Tanney. I also suspect that Corp or Tanney could do a better job of quarterbacking the Bills, if both Fitz and Young went down, than Brad Smith could do.

The Bills terminated contract negotiations with Winfield because they'd used his salary cap room on Lawyer Milloy instead. It's quite possible that, had they continued those negotiations, they could have signed him for a salary equal to or less than the money the Vikings offered him a year later. You may well be right about saying he wanted to play for Cottrell. On the other hand, it's human nature to value a bird in the hand more than two in the bush. Had the Bills shown Winfield the kind of money he'd see a year later (from the Jets and Vikings), I think he would have taken it. And would have justified it to himself with the thought that his financial future was on the line, and that the Bills' offer had secured it. Once the Bills signed Milloy, they lacked the salary cap space to seriously compete for Winfield's services. The decision to let Winfield go first-contract-and-out was made a year before Winfield hit free agency.