Orton's Arm

Good post. The Bills' running game was ineffective. Period. The main problem there isn't the running backs. It's the offensive line. Speaking of the offensive line, I expected the interior to play poorly; so I wasn't that surprised by what I saw. I was surprised by Glenn getting owned on the strip/sack. I also get the impression that Henderson is too large/immobile to handle speed rushers. (At least that's what he looked like today.) Even a good player is allowed to have an occasional bad day, so I'm willing to give Glenn a mulligan. But other than him and possibly Wood, I can't think of any long-term answers on that line. The lack of a good line has mostly snuffed out the running game, and is greatly impeding the passing attack. It was hard to tell from my television screen, but the announcers said that Watkins was well-covered by Revis pretty much the whole game. That makes me miss a WR we used to have who could get open against Revis. (And who was traded for a fourth round pick.) Other than Chandler, it doesn't seem like the Bills' receiving threats did a good job of getting open. But as bad as all that was, our real problems were on defense. To its credit, the defense played well in the second half. During the first half, the Bills were 0-3 in the turnover battle. Being down by 13-7 at the end of the half is not bad at all, considering that turnover margin. I felt that if they played like that in the second half--except without the turnovers--they had an excellent chance of winning. Instead, the Patriots scored on every drive of the second half. The closest thing the defense had to a second half success was holding the Patriots to a FG. But there was only one second half Patriots drive like that. All the other drives were touchdowns. The Bills very obviously don't have the defense I thought they had. With no second half defense whatever, and no running game, the only thing we had going for us was the passing attack. That passing attack isn't going to be enough to carry the team.

Every player on the Bills should be absolutely confident they can win, regardless of the quality of the officiating. That said, biased officiating typically doesn't occur in a vacuum. It exists as a response to pressure. The kind of pressure Kraft can exert as a member of the rules committee. It's acceptable for fans to exert pressure in the opposite direction. Pressure for nice, clean, unbiased officiating. If, on the other hand, we as fans signal we don't care about the quality or neutrality of officiating, there would be no reason for the NFL to care either. Why should the NFL care about something that doesn't matter to the fans?

Good post. My observations about Orton in the Detroit game are similar to yours. Personally, I'm not a big fan of evaluating a QB by "his" W/L record. The theory behind that method is that most teams are fairly similar in terms of non-QB positions; and that QB play makes the difference between winning and losing. The problem with that theory is that teams often aren't similar in terms of non-QB talent. It's possible for a team to win despite mediocre QB play, or lose despite good QB play. Elway's Broncos would sometimes go 7-9. From 2009 to the present, Orton has done better than Fitz in terms of yards per attempt, air yards per attempt, and interception percentage. The two QBs are similar in terms of QBR. Orton looked like a better QB than Fitz against Detroit; and that eyeball test was borne out by three of the four statistical measures I value the most.

Doubtless putting Pears in at guard seemed like a peach of an idea. But if Marrone wants to retain employment in any position which keeps him in the limelight, he'll have to admit Pears is a lemon.

Twice a year, it will be necessary for there to be a separate game day thread for officiating. For the other 14 games, there is a chance that the officiating won't be a big part of the game. Certainly not important enough to merit its own game day thread. Use this thread to discuss your thoughts and feelings about officiating calls and non-calls. Commentary not related to officiating belongs in the game thread.

> He is a much better player [today than he was with Chicago] I didn't see much of him with Chicago. But his statistics there were certainly mediocre. Just from looking at the numbers, he seems to have considerably improved between then and now. > To act like Orton can improve and EJ can't makes no sense to me. Manuel was over-drafted based on good physical traits. He was a one read college QB in a simplified offense. His throwing accuracy was suspect. QBs like that tend to have a high physical upside, and a low ceiling from the standpoint of accuracy and information processing. They plateau early. What you see from them early in their careers is about the best you're going to get. Is it possible Manuel will be an exception to that general pattern? Yes. But it's a long shot. (In the same sense that Jeff Tuel becoming the next Kurt Warner was a long shot.) It probably makes sense to keep Manuel on the roster for another year to see how that long shot plays out. Orton's pre-draft scouting report indicated he "has the field-reading skills of a 10 year NFL vet." Did it take time for his information processing ability to translate to the NFL game? Absolutely. Peyton Manning, Drew Brees, and Aaron Rodgers are all better quarterbacks than Kyle Orton will ever be. But despite this disparity in ability, the four of them have one thing in common. All four demonstrated good information processing ability while playing college ball, and all four needed several years to fully develop that ability in the NFL.

Below is a quote from here ************* Jason Campbell was selected with the 25th pick [of the 2005 draft], a round earlier than almost everyone expected. . . . Kyle Orton was another player expected to be taken in the 2nd or 3rd round, but dropped rapidly on draft day, falling to the 4th round . . . Scouts who looked at Orton saw some quality strengths: - Intelligent and instinctive signal caller - Good athlete with solid arm strength - Incredibly tough Weaknesses were enough though to hold GM's back from drafting him. Lacks impressive arm strength, impatient under pressure and isn't a physical specimen. ************* A pre-draft scouting report had this to say about Orton: *********** He has the field-reading skills of a 10 year NFL vet and can diagnose a blitz instantly, and is happy to sit in against it and make his reads. Good timing is a huge part of his play. . . . Watching him throw a long ball is just plain painful. . . . Another warning sign has to be his benching towards the end of his senior season. ********** The two things I most value in a QB are accuracy and rapid information processing ability. A guy who demonstrates good information processing ability in college ball may take a while to develop it in the NFL. But a guy who doesn't demonstrate good information processing ability in college will almost never develop it in the pros, no matter how much development time he is given. Orton's initial stats in Chicago were mediocre at best, despite his having "the field-reading skills of a 10 year vet" when coming out of college. But he's improved since then. From 2009 - the present, Orton's stats have been significantly better than Fitz's.

Good post. Failing to adjust one's route because of a blitz seems like the type of mistake you'd expect from a rookie WR. In this case, I'm delighted that Watkins was able to use his athletic gifts and sheer determination to make good on that error.

> Orton . . . TRUSTS his arm As well he should!

Good post. I agree that yards per carry data is much more indicative of performance than raw yardage. I don't think people realize how well Spiller performed under Gailey. As you pointed out, in years 2 and 3 under Gailey, he averaged more than 5 yards a carry. Not once did Emmit Smith average more than 5 yards per carry during a season. (And this, despite playing behind one of the best OLs in NFL history.) While Spiller is no Emmit Smith, getting over five yards per carry out of him is a very impressive achievement for both Spiller and Gailey. Hackett hasn't come close to replicating those achievements.

> First you say Orton has outperformed Fitz by a wide margin. Then you admit that QBR has been about equal. There are four statistical indicators I consider meaningful: yards per attempt, air yards per attempt, INT percentage, and QBR. Since 2009, Orton has outperformed Fitz on three of the four; and they are about equal on QBR. Whenever statistical indicators point in different directions, you look for ways in which some of the indicators might be misrepresenting performance. I found no evidence that yards per attempt, air yards per attempt, or INT percentage were misrepresenting the two QBs' respective performances. In the absence of such evidence, I cannot justify throwing out three of the four best indicators at my disposal. > Fitz's completion percentage is better. And Trent Edwards' career completion percentage is better than Jim Kelly's. Completion percentage can reveal a lot about a QB's preference for short, high percentage dump off passes. But just because a guy likes to dump the ball off a lot doesn't mean he's a better quarterback. > He has also thrown more TD and more yards. Orton has thrown for more yards per attempt than Fitz. But Fitz has more yards than Orton, because he's attempted more passes. > "by the metrics Orton's Arm deems important, Orton is better" Yes. But it's not like I'm picking these metrics out of a hat. Considerable thought, research, and experience has gone into deciding which metrics to use and (importantly) which to avoid.

I disagree. Under the OP's scenario, the Bills get the Jets' first round pick, and all we have to do is unload Manuel and a RB who will likely walk at season's end anyways. A deal like that would make a ton of sense . . . for the Bills. But despite appearances to the contrary, the Jets are not run by imbeciles. So I don't think the OP's scenario is going to happen.

Since 2009, Orton has outperformed Fitz by a wide margin. Whether you look at yards per attempt, air yards per attempt, or TD/INT ratio, Orton has been significantly better. On the other hand, his QBR over that period has been about equal to Fitz's, which is cause for concern. Overall though, both statistical indicators and the eyeball test indicate that Orton most likely represents a step up from Fitz. If not two steps up. The question is whether you can turn a quarterbacking performance like that into a Super Bowl win. Some of the best QBs in the league--Brady, Manning, and Brees--are nearing retirement. There isn't a group of young QBs of that caliber emerging to replace them. As those three players continue to age, the NFL will experience a reduction in its overall level of quarterback talent. Normally, to win a Super Bowl, you have to have a franchise QB + a complete team around him. While Kyle Orton is probably better than Fitz, he isn't a franchise QB. But there are some years when the Super Bowl winner is weaker than usual. If you think of the usual list of franchise QBs, none of them are on complete football teams. Maybe a team like San Diego will turn out to be complete, while also having a QB who plays at a franchise level. If so, they will be extremely difficult for the Bills to overcome. If there is a window of opportunity for the Bills to win the Super Bowl with Orton at the helm, that window won't open until next year. (This assumes that the Bills' OG problems will be fixed in the off season.) Even if a team like the Chargers emerges to win the Super Bowl this year, it's quite possible they'll come back to Earth next year. The hope under this scenario would be that the Bills would achieve a sort of peak strength at the very moment when no other contender can put both a franchise QB and a complete team on the football field. In which case, the Bills would have a serious chance of hoisting the Lombardi Trophy. But there should be more than one arrow in the Bills' quiver. On the one hand, they should be maximizing any short-term opportunities they may have to win the Super Bowl with Orton as QB. But if the opportunity arises to draft a Bridgewater or Bortles type prospect, they should take it. By this I mean that if a college QB demonstrates a high level of accuracy and very good information processing ability on a college football field, while also possessing a respectable set of physical tools, the Bills should take him. On the other hand, they shouldn't waste their time or their draft picks on college QBs who haven't demonstrated these things. Obtaining a legitimate franchise QB would give them another arrow in their quiver.

> I disagree with the quicker reads than last week. There were a number of times against Houston when Manuel was very quick to go to his dump-off option. In that sense, I agree that the reads were not necessarily quicker this week than last week. > The reads last week where fine, And here is where we disagree. Manuel's reads against Houston weren't remotely close to being "fine." He was clearly unable to process information quickly enough to identify open receivers. People have posted screen shots of open WRs Manuel should have targeted, while also showing the dump-off options or covered WRs he did target. Nor was he very good at telling the difference between plays when he could get away with standing in the pocket a little, versus plays when he had to dump it off quickly due to bad pass protection. > Not hijacking the thread into an EJ/Orton argument. No, of course not. Nothing about your post, your signature, or any previous threads I've seen on this board remotely suggests the possibility of a hijacking.

This is good to know. In that case I will interpret that 31% figure as a minimum estimate. One reason for my curiosity on this matter is to gauge the effectiveness the offense could have attained with decent OL play.

> I suggest to you that evaluating this % air yards against the actual success of these QB offense (and W/L record of those teams) will reveal it's not a very predictive statistic. Agreed. Which is why I ignored that statistic in my post. The column I would have used is air yards per attempt. Air yards per attempt is exactly the same thing as yards per attempt, except that air yards per attempt doesn't give the quarterback credit for yards after the catch (YAC). Should a QB be given credit for yards after the catch? There isn't an easy yes or no answer to that question. Suppose a QB throws a 5 yard pass, and hits the WR in perfect stride. Because of the perfect timing of the throw, the WR is able to generate 4 yards of YAC. In a case like that, the QB should receive credit for the YAC, because the good timing of his throw was instrumental in generating that YAC. On the other hand, suppose a QB throws a pass to a relatively stationary target near the line of scrimmage. That receiver then proceeds to generate 40 yards of YAC. In a case like that, the QB should not be given credit for the YAC; because the QB didn't do anything special on that throw to help the receiver generate YAC. From 2009 - present, Kyle Orton has done significantly better than Fitz in both yards per attempt and air yards per attempt. Of the two, Orton's advantage in air yards per attempt was even stronger than in yards per attempt. Fitz's receivers were better at generating YAC than Orton's receivers; making the yards per attempt differential smaller than it otherwise would have been. A certain amount of that was because Chan Gailey would design short pass plays intended to go for long gains. Those long gains show up in Fitz's yards per attempt, but not his air yards per attempt. By looking at both yards per attempt and air yards per attempt, we get a clearer picture than would have been the case, had we focused on just one stat or the other.

> I know you like them, but what annoints them as "far more meaningful indicators"? A quarterback can inflate his completion percentage by dumping the ball off short. Not that Fitz would ever dump the ball off short or anything. But still--it could happen! A QB who goes 3-3 for 7 yards will have a higher completion percentage than a QB who goes 1 of 2 for 20 yards. There's no point in measuring the completion percentage. Just measure the yards! (Which is exactly what yards per attempt does.) Quarterback rating takes completion percentage into account. As a result, it overstates the production of dump-off QBs, while understating the production of downfield passers. As one example of this messed-up measurement system: Kelly' Holcomb's career quarterback rating is 79.2; compared to 79.8 for John Elway. Someone looking just at quarterback rating would think both quarterbacks had performed at nearly identical levels. I'm more pro-Holcomb than most, but that is ridiculous! On the other hand, Elway had a career yards per attempt of 7.1; compared to 6.6 for Holcomb. You can't inflate yards per attempt with a lot of dump-offs, which is why yards per attempt correctly indicates that Elway was a substantially better QB than Holcomb. Completion percentage has the exact same problems, except to an even greater degree. Jim Kelly's completion percentage was 60.1; as compared to 60.5 for Trent Edwards. Someone who used completion percentage to evaluate QBs would think Trent Edwards was slightly better than Jim Kelly! On the other hand, Kelly averaged 7.4 yards per attempt over the course of his career to 6.5 yards per attempt for Trent Edwards. All those dink and dunk passes may have helped Edwards inflate his completion percentage; but they did nothing to improve his yards per attempt.

There are some statistical differences too. From 2009 to the present, Ryan Fitzpatrick has averaged 6.8 yards per attempt. (2229 attempts, 15,162 yards.) During that same period, Kyle Orton has averaged 7.2 yards per attempt. (1395 attempts, 10,008 yards.) To put those numbers into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt. Tom Brady's career average is 7.5 yards per attempt. The difference between Orton and Fitzpatrick has been about 40% as large as the difference between Brady and Edwards--at least as measured by that one stat. But there are other stats to examine beyond just yards per attempt. For example, there's air yards per attempt. Suppose, for example, that a QB's receivers are really good at getting YAC; making his yards per attempt look better than it really should. Using air yards per attempt would shine a light on that situation. From 2009 to the present, Ryan Fitzpatrick has averaged 6.1 air yards per attempt. During that same period, Kyle Orton averaged 7.0 air yards per attempt. If you take yards after the catch out of the equation, the statistical difference between Orton and Fitzpatrick becomes larger. (A note on calculations: if a QB averages 6.0 yards per attempt one season, and 8.0 the next, it does not mean his average for the two seasons was 7.0. You have to weight each season by the number of pass attempts--which is what I did when calculating the above averages.) From 2009 to the present, Kyle Orton has performed at a noticeably higher level than Ryan Fitzpatrick--at least according to the two statistical measures I used. Both yards per attempt and air yards per attempt are far more meaningful indicators of a QB's play than completion percentage or quarterback rating. The one credible statistical indicator which might put Orton into the same category as Fitzpatrick is QBR. (Both QBs' QBRs have been roughly similar during the period in question.) With both QBs tied on QBR, and with Orton significantly ahead of Fitzpatrick in terms of yards per attempt and air yards per attempt, I see no statistical reason why Orton can't be a noticeably better QB than Fitzpatrick. Not only that, Orton looked significantly more accurate than Fitz; while also demonstrating good decision-making.

I love your weekly analysis. It's almost always better to see things as they are, than to live in a world of one's own imagining. Your weekly game analysis quantifies one aspect of the game. A useful tool for seeing things as they are. > Of the 6 unforced errors only 2 were egregiously off target. That doesn't sound so bad. I could be wrong about this, but I think that an elite QB who attempted 44 passes in a game would typically have maybe two or three bad throws. (Assuming he's playing at or above his usual high level.) 6 unforced errors isn't as good as that would be, but it's not too shabby either. The most surprising part of your analysis was that a line breakdown occurred on only 31% of pass plays. My subjective impression was that it was considerably worse. I'm not disagreeing with your analysis. Just a little surprised is all. > I also saw zero drops... That's excellent news. I'm very happy with the quality of the Bills' WR corps; and stats like that reinforce my positive impression.

> I remember that thread and I remember the flak you took from it. And I remember that you were right, Thanks for taking the time to look up the link. > 1) The Detroit game was a gift because of a bad day for a kicker It's highly anomalous for a kicker to go 0-3. But it's also anomalous for Orton to throw a pick six. The latter anomaly mostly cancels out the former. > 2) the Pats just beat the tar out of the Bengals, Which could mean they're back on track, starting with Tom Brady. Hopefully that game was an outlier, not the beginning of a pattern. > historically the Pats seem to be able to beat the Bills pretty regularly. The two common factors during that trend have been superior Patriots quarterbacking and superior Patriots coaching. Both those usual mainstays are being challenged this season. Which means the Patriots' usual position as top dog is being challenged as well. Don't get me wrong. I'm not in any position to promise a Bills win or anything. But I think we have a much better chance to beat them this season than our usual.

> Marrone must like seeing Pears get blown up every game on numerous occasions. For whatever reason, Marrone has been acting as though Pears is the apple of his eye. At some point, he needs to admit that putting Pears at RG has not been fruitful.

Just to add to what you've written: Orton threw a pick six against the Lions. Most weeks he's not going to do that. (Just as most weeks Detroit's FG kicker won't go 0-3.) If all players on both teams were healthy, and if Detroit had a credible FG kicker, I think they're a slightly better team than the Bills. But the margin is close--closer than I'd thought before the game.

> You are going to jinx Orton. Change your name right now! Your insignia is a kiss of death. It is too late for that. Once you've changed your screen name, you can't change it again for six months. The die has been cast. > Your unbridled enthusiam after one Orton quarterbacked game is out of control. For your sake you need to tone it down. Hopefully I'll be turning my enthusiasm up after the Bills beat the Patriots! If the bridles have already been taken away from my enthusiasm, then maybe by this time next week I'll be discarding the saddle too! > In my mind the Bills are still a fringe wildcard team. Fair enough. I don't think they can be considered a serious Super Bowl contender this year, due to the situation at offensive guard. But if we could dramatically upgrade both OG spots in the offseason, and if Orton can play good, solid football, the Bills become a realistic part of next year's conversation about Super Bowl contenders. Will they actually win the Super Bowl at that point? Probably not. But at least they'll have a single or double digit chance of winning, which would be much better than their usual chance. (Which in my opinion has been less than a tenth of a percent.)

A few years ago, the Bills were around 4-2 with Fitzpatrick under center. However, they were barely winning games. despite achieving a very positive turnover differential. I started a thread entitled "The Bills' method of winning is unsustainable." I received a lot of responses similar to those directed at the OP. I don't think anyone's fanhood or strength should be challenged just because one doesn't view the future through rose colored glasses. Rose colored glasses are a less than completely logical response to this team's past track record. That said, I do not share the OP's perspective on this particular matter. The Bills' defense has been very good, especially upfront. Better than the Patriots' defense. The Bills have better WRs than the Patriots. As for quarterbacks . . . Eight years ago, if you were to compare Kyle Orton to Tom Brady, people would laugh at you. But Tom Brady isn't the same guy today he was eight years ago. One of the reasons Jim Kelly retired when he did was because he was told that if he returned for another year, he'd have to win a training camp battle against Todd Collins to have a starting spot. Dan Marino wasn't starter caliber at the end of his career. Nor was Brett Favre. Tom Brady is not yet as bad as Dan Marino or Brett Favre had been at the end of their respective careers. Even so, he's only averaged 6.3 yards per pass attempt this season. That's worse than the career average of Trent Edwards or J.P. Losman. Maybe he'll improve that average as the season progresses. This past Sunday, he averaged a very impressive 8.3 yards per attempt against the Bengals. This past Sunday, Orton averaged 7.2 yards per attempt against the league's #1 defense. Given that the Patriots defense isn't as good as the Lions defense, I don't see why he can't do the same thing again this Sunday. The real question is Tom Brady. Will he average 6.3 yards per attempt against the Bills, in-line with his overall average thus far this season? Or will he play like he did against the Bengals? If he fails to break 6.3 against the Bills, we will almost certainly win. (Especially if Orton turns in the same kind of performance this week he provided last week.) But if Brady looks as good against the Bills defense as he did against the Bengals, winning the game would be a tough row to hoe for Orton.

> For the better part of 3 quarters the Bills offense looked exactly like it did under EJ. Check downs, short passes . . . You can't judge what a QB does in a vacuum. You have to compare his actual accomplishment on any given play to the opportunity which existed at the time. If (for example) there's a jailbreak, the best opportunity on that particular play might be to take a sack or (at best) throw the ball away. Orton received little or no pass protection for the vast majority of the Detroit game. Given the fact the Lions had the number 1 defense--a defense which had mostly shut down Aaron Rodgers and the Packers just two weeks earlier, that lack of pass protection should come as no surprise. Especially not to anyone even remotely familiar with the Bills' play at OG. Due to that lack of pass protection, the best opportunities Orton had on most plays were relatively short check-downs. When he was given time to throw, he generally attempted intermediate to deep passes. Passes which were accurate far more often than not. > The only accurate pass downfield that Orton made all game was the one to Goodwin Um, no. The above isn't even close to being true. > People are always too quick to jump down someone's throat and say they suck and too quick to appoint them the savior. Agreed. I hope no one will do anything crazy, like changing his screen name after just one 300 yard performance. Even if it was a 300 yard performance against the league's #1 defense.