Orton's Arm

> i don't think the Bills have stopped developing or given up on EJ. The United States has a population of about 300 million. Of those 300 million, about a dozen have the ability to play quarterback in the NFL at a high level. In practice, Orton has been noticeably more accurate, and better with timing, than has Manuel. When I first learned to throw a football, I wasn't all that accurate. But then I found that making a few seemingly subtle changes improved my accuracy considerably. Putting my fingers a little farther back on the ball. Spreading my fingers out wider. Making sure my left (non-throwing) shoulder faced the intended receiver. These are all things I figured out on my own. Once I did, I became pretty accurate. Often very accurate. However, Manuel has been playing quarterback at least since high school. By this point in his career, his coaches have almost certainly picked the low lying fruit. By that I mean that if there were something really simple and obvious holding his accuracy back--such as not spreading his fingers apart wide enough--a coach somewhere along the way would have already pointed it out and corrected it. His high school coach. Or one of his college coaches. Or if not a coach from college, then a Bills coach when he was a rookie; or in training camp as a second year player. Are there more advanced things Manuel could be working on to improve his accuracy? Probably there are. But if he isn't an accurate quarterback after the low lying fruit has been picked, odds are very strong that working on the more advanced stuff will help him only at the margin. At this point, the Bills have to be realistic about the fact that Manuel is almost certainly among the 299,999,988 Americans who can't play QB in the NFL at a high level.

I voted against the trade. On the one hand, I think there's a very good chance Watkins will perform at the level you'd expect from a player chosen 4th overall; and considered one of the four elite players in the draft. As others have pointed out, teams need stars, and Watkins looks like he's in the process of becoming a star for the Bills. However, Bridgewater represented an opportunity for the Bills to obtain a long-term answer at quarterback. With the right trade up, the same could also be said about Bortles. There has been one franchise QB in Bills' history: Jim Kelly. Obtaining his successor fundamentally changes the equation for this football team. As important as a star at WR is, a very good QB dwarfs the impact even of that. On the other hand, I liked what I saw of Orton against Detroit. Enough to change my screen name, in fact. Best-case scenario: Orton is a top-15 QB for the Bills for at least the next five years. In which case, losing out on the chance to draft Bridgewater or Bortles wouldn't feel so bad.

From the link you shared earlier in the thread: ******************* Scouts Inc.'s Matt Williamson predicts FSU QB E.J. Manuel will go in the top 40 selections in the 2013 draft. This is the highest we've seen Manuel predicted. The Florida State quarterback has the physical talent to be considered early in the draft, but he's been far too inconsistent in college. In January, NFL Network's Mike Mayock said he was told Manuel was expected to be selected in the third- to fourth-round. ****************** The above block of text partially confirms the opinion in your post. I'm not sure I agree that a dozen teams would have taken him by the third or fourth round. But odds are that at least one--and probably more than one--non-Bills team would have been willing to take him that early. Taking him in the third or fourth round is easier to justify than taking him in the first. This is not to suggest that I personally would have used a third or fourth round pick on him; because I wouldn't have. But at least a GM who did use such a pick on him could later say, "He didn't demonstrate great accuracy or information processing in college. We knew odds were heavily against him becoming a quality NFL starter, which is why we waited until the fourth round to take him." An approach like that might not be perfect, but it's worlds better than going "all in" on a QB who hadn't demonstrated accuracy or good information processing ability while playing college ball.

In order to properly evaluate a WR, you'd like to have decent play from the QB position, and decent play from your offensive line. If the pass rush gets to the quarterback ridiculously quickly, he won't have time for anything more than his dump-off option. In the Lions game the Bills had solid quarterback play. But the Lions' DL dominated the Bills' OL. I expect the Bills' OL to look better most weeks than it did against the Lions. I also expect this "looking better" to start this Sunday against the Patriots. By the end of the season, we should have a clearer picture of what we have or don't have in Robert Woods.

I think we have to allow for at least the possibility that those other teams worked out Manuel not because they were interested in him, but as a pre-draft smokescreen to conceal their true drafting intentions. If the Eagles' supposed interest in Manuel was never intended to be anything more than a smokescreen, it would have been unnecessary for them to speak with Fisher. In which case, it's at least possible his public statement was true in its entirety. However, I think that there's an excellent chance your post is 100% accurate. If you're right, at least part of Fisher's public statement was a deliberate falsification. In which case, the statement in its entirety loses all credibility. If we take Fisher's words at face value, the only team seriously interested in Manuel was the Buffalo Bills. All the other teams which worked him out did so as a pre-draft smokescreen. If on the other hand we dismiss Fisher's statement as a lie, then there's no evidence with which to contradict Schefter's report. If 31 out of 32 teams didn't think highly enough about Manuel to ask his coach about him, then that's an extremely serious indicator that a first round pick shouldn't have been used on him. If, on the other hand, his college coach warned teams he didn't have a bright future in the NFL, that's also an extremely serious indication that he shouldn't have been drafted in the first three rounds. Whether Fisher was telling the truth or lying, this story is yet another indication that Manuel didn't warrant a first or second round draft pick.

I agree Orton provided solid QB play. He's no Joe Montana--as we saw on the pick six--but his overall body of work in that game was strong. IIRC, he's only 31. While that's too old to be considered a long-term solution at quarterback, I'd have no objection to his being the starter for the next few years. If the opportunity arises for the Bills to draft a Bridgewater or Bortles-type prospect, they should snap that QB up. But in the meantime, Orton can hold down the fort. In fact, I have so much confidence in Orton's ability to hold down that fort that I've just changed my screen name. Granted, my past track record in that regard hasn't been great. But hopefully the third time will be the charm. I believe that Orton can play at a higher level than Trent Dilfer, and that the Bills' WRs are much better than the WRs on the Ravens of 2000. With a decent offensive line, we could have a much stronger passing attack than that team had. Our defense won't be as insanely good as that defense was. But maybe our superior passing attack will be enough to compensate for that. Normally, you'd expect the Lombardi Trophy to go to a team with a franchise QB + a complete team surrounding him. But off the top of my head, I can't think of any teams which meet that description. Guys like Manning, Brees, and Brady are nearing retirement, and it's not like there's a group of first - third year QBs of equal talent emerging to take the places of those three giants. Not only that, but the best QBs in the league at the moment are not on complete teams. Just as it's easier to win the AFC East than usual, it might also be easier to win the Super Bowl than usual. However, the Bills won't belong in that latter discussion until they've fixed their problems at offensive guard. None of their other weaknesses are necessarily show stoppers. But the situation at OG is completely unacceptable for any team with serious post-season aspirations.

A DB has just as much right to go for the football as a WR. Sometimes, a DB's legitimate efforts to try to catch the ball result in incidental contact. Incidental contact is considered legal. But a DB isn't allowed to hug a WR, hold down his arms, or otherwise interfere with the WR's attempt to catch the football. The play you're describing is one of the most blatant cases of pass interference I've ever seen. A terrible, terrible non-call by the officials. If the NFL ever decided to start fining officials for missed calls or bad non-calls, that play would be a textbook example of an officiating call bad enough to deserve a fine.

I acknowledge that Manuel seems to have a good work ethic and a good attitude. He seems like a nice person--at least from what I can tell. If people are taking shots at him, I don't think it's because of any animosity toward him personally. I believe that this thread was an effort to counter the illusion that Manuel would have played just as well as Orton played. For the most part, the Bills' OL was completely dominated by Detroit. Utterly crushed. On the rare occasions when Orton had pass protection, he typically used that pass protection to attempt "big league" throws. Throws which were generally accurate. While Manuel has sometimes had good games, those games have always been when he had good pass protection. He has never shown Orton's ability for knowing when to dump it off, and when to hold onto the ball a little to let the WRs get open. Some of Manuel's supporters have claimed that Orton threw for a "hollow" 300 yards, even though that performance came against the league's #1 defense. To me, it was obvious that Orton had to scratch and claw for the vast majority of those 300 yards. It's not like his receivers handed him an easy 300 yard game due to excessive YAC. (Although I give Sammy Watkins a world of credit for that catch at the end. That was one of the best football plays at any position I've ever seen. I could also say the same thing about Carpenter's kick.) It isn't Manuel's fault that he was drafted in the first round. His college coach said the following: "I spoke to Buddy Nix. . . . I did not speak to any other teams, general managers or head coaches about EJ." Assuming his statement is accurate, it would likely indicate that 31 out of 32 teams were not very interested in Manuel. Manuel is obviously doing the best he can, given his limitations. It's not his fault that he cannot now (and probably will never) be able to throw a football with consistently good timing or accuracy; or that he can't process on-field information quickly, or make more than one read per play. The Bills' front office is supposed to figure that stuff out.

When a QB checks the ball down to a RB, I think to myself, I could make that exact throw. It wouldn't even be that difficult. But there are other times when I'll see a QB make throws that I just can't make. (Or at best, can't make with any consistency.) Throws which remind me why he's the one getting paid millions, while I'm the one sitting and watching on the couch. For most of the Lions game, Orton received very little pass protection. Checking the ball down to the RB was the right move; regardless of whether I could or couldn't make those throws myself. But there were a number of times when he made "big league" throws--throws a guy like me can't make. I thought that most of the big league throws he attempted were surprisingly accurate. If memory serves, on Orton's last pass to Watkins, Orton was in the process of being hauled to the ground as he threw the football. If my memory is correct, it would explain why that pass was so inaccurate.

I don't know how good this coaching staff is at evaluating the talent on the roster. But I know that previous coaching staffs kept Fred Jackson from getting any regular season carries--for a long time--so that washed-up players like Anthony Thomas could get all the carries. Stevie Johnson was also initially confined to this preseason hero/zero regular season snaps status for a few years. (At a time when the Bills didn't have great talent at WR.) Obviously, there's a chance this coaching staff is significantly better at player evaluation than that one had been. But there's no reason for me to be sure it's better--at least not without supporting evidence.

Good thread as usual Bill. Below are a few of my own observations: 1) It's difficult to overstate the dominance the Lions' DL achieved over the Bills' OL. If a coach got a group of 8th grade OL together, and had them face 12th grade DL, you'd get the outcome I saw against the Lions. 2) Due to the Lions' domination of the Bills' OL, Orton didn't have much time in the pocket at all. His two options were to dump the ball off or take the sack. He chose the former. But on the rare occasions when he received decent protection, he usually went down field. His throwing accuracy seemed reasonably good. 3) It's worth bearing in mind that just two weeks ago, the Lions defense played exceptionally well against Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers. Even one of the 15 best QBs in NFL history couldn't overcome the kind of defensive domination the Lions produced. 4) Yes, I realize the Lions' DL is ridiculously good. Nevertheless, I'm becoming increasingly convinced that the weakest position on this team is the OL--especially offensive guard. Kyle Orton solidifies what would otherwise be a weak QB position. 5) If, in the upcoming draft, the Bills go OG in the second and OG again in the third, we could have a real team. The defense--while not perfect--seems very strong overall. The offense has what appears to be a reasonably good QB; and has good play makers. Special teams are strong. But the offensive line is dragging down the offense as a whole. If you could mitigate the Lions' domination over the Bills' OL, we would have seen an entirely different ballgame.

Four pages in, and no one has mentioned Greg Jerman!

The statistics you've provided bear out your argument. Granted, statistics can sometimes lead themselves to distortions. For example, people cite Manuel's decent completion percentage as an indicator of competent play. When in reality, that completion percentage is decent mostly because of his tendency to avoid nearly all passes more than five yards past the line of scrimmage. In this case however, I can't think of any obvious statistical distortions. That doesn't mean there aren't any. If stats like QBR or air yards per attempt were available for the performances in question, I'd certainly like to look at those as well. But given the data you've provided, it does seem as though Flutie was playing at a higher level than Johnson during the time frame in question. Flutie's statistical drop-off during the 1999 season has sometimes been blamed on the Moulds injury. You mentioned that during Flutie's final four games played of that season, he averaged 7.1 yards per attempt. How many of those games (if any) was Moulds present for?

Let's say the Bills' offensive line was as good as the Cowboys' line from the mid '90s. And let's say our receiving corps was as good as the one we have. If I had to pick any post-Kelly Bills' QB to quarterback that team, I'd choose Rob Johnson. Johnson was probably the most accurate post-Kelly Bills' QB, at least for intermediate to deep passes. With a receiving corps like the one we have now, he would have had plenty of targets! Unfortunately, during Johnson's time in Buffalo, the Bills had what had to have been one of the worst offensive lines in NFL history. Its best player was LG Ruben Brown, a Pro Bowler. No problem there. But its second-best player was LT John Fina; ranked about 28th among starting NFL LTs. There was a significant drop-off between Fina and the other three guys on the line. Guys which consisted of Jerry Ostroski, Corbin Lacina, and Jamie Nails. Flutie made that line look better than it was; Rob Johnson somehow managed to make it look even worse than it truly was. During the Titans game, there were two times in the first half when one of their DEs (Jevon Kearse) ran untouched to the quarterback. (Once when lining up against the LT, once against the RT.) Both those times resulted in sacks; and one resulted in a fumble/turnover. I can't recall whether the Titans returned that fumble for a touchdown. Both the OTs were playing hurt; and both were replaced by their healthy backups after failing to touch Kearse as he raced past on his way to Johnson. I felt that Johnson played poorly in the first half of the Titans game, and well in the second half. Bear in mind that the Bills were losing at the end of the first half; so all but the last 14 seconds of the second half represented a comeback. Perhaps the correct solution--both for that game and games in general--would have been to go to a dual starter situation. Flutie would be the Bills' starter for the first halves of games; Johnson the starter for the second half. The rationale is that by the second half of a game you've worn out their pass rush to a degree. (Especially with Flutie running around back there.) Of the two, Flutie is the guy you want back there if the pocket is collapsing; Johnson is the one you want if the QB has time to throw. A dual starter situation would also force defensive coordinators to develop two different game plans; especially given the dramatic differences between the two QBs' playing styles. > Johnson performed poorly -in the Titans game (again, look at the stats) despite playing a very mediocre pass defense. This is the first time I've heard the Titans' pass defense described as mediocre. Both the Bills and Titans were considered to be stronger on defense than offense. Given that the Titans came one play away from winning a Super Bowl against a loaded Rams team, I'd think they were strong on both sides of the ball. But especially on defense.

I once watched a documentary about Joe Montana. They pointed out that even in high school, he was a very accurate quarterback. They showed video footage of some of his high school play. At least on the plays they showed, he did an excellent job of throwing the ball with touch and accuracy. These were very catcheable, perfectly positioned passes. There is the hope that Manuel will someday develop the touch and accuracy he hadn't displayed in college. Or that he'll develop the ability to process large amounts of on-field information quickly; despite the fact he'd been a one read QB in a simplified college offense. It's easy to measure a QB's height, arm strength, or foot speed. Because these things are easily measured, physical limitations seem more real to most people than non-physical limitations. When people talk about a quarterback having a high "upside," what they often mean is, "This quarterback has great physical gifts. He'd be a really great football player if any non-physical limitations--accuracy, information processing ability, whatever--could simply be imagined away." Coaching and development time are seen as magic wands which can make non-physical limitations disappear. "Good coaching" cannot cause a player's mental bandwidth to increase, any more than it can cause a player to grow two inches taller. While good coaching can fix mechanical issues which may have been impeding a QB's accuracy, it cannot take a naturally inaccurate passer and make him accurate. Invisible, non-physical limitations are just as real and just as insurmountable as those which can be measured with a stopwatch or tape measure.

I've read that the Bills haven't won a playoff game since Bill Clinton was president. While that's certainly true, it didn't seem to state things emphatically enough. There's been enough time since the Bills' last playoff win for someone to be conceived, born, grow up, and become famous. So I started thinking of examples of young celebrities. I'm not great at keeping track of celebrities; so if you have better examples than the ones I've given, please share them. The Bills' last playoff win was in 1995; so you're looking for celebrities born around that time.

> It makes sense as to me EJ reminds me a lot of RJ in that both guys did everything they could to avoid making costly mistakes. While there are some similarities, Rob Johnson wasn't afraid to throw intermediate or deep passes. Wade Phillips once said that "Johnson looks long to short; Flutie looks short to long." Which is certainly true. Johnson was a more accurate passer than most of our other post-Kelly QBs. Accuracy isn't exactly one of Manuel's hallmarks. > can avoid taking big hits/sacks and then checks it down hence some compare EJ to Edwards. There's truth to that. Both Edwards and Manuel would check it down to their dump off options, even when big plays were there to be made. Edwards never had a Watkins/Woods/Williams group of WRs, and his OL protection was often bad. If Manuel typically wastes more big play opportunities over the course of a game than Edwards did, it's a reflection on the fact that the Bills did a much better job of creating big play opportunities for Manuel than they had for Edwards. > Yet if you really want to go back further had we drafted RJ instead of Todd Collins Bills history could have really been a whole lot different. I was on Rob Johnson's side in the Flutie/Johnson controversy. I've since realized that Rob Johnson, J.P. Losman, Trent Edwards, and E.J. Manuel all have the same problem. None can rapidly process on-field information. In Rob Johnson's case, that weakness manifested itself by his taking a long time in the pocket. Also, he ignored some information (anything related to the pass rush) so that he could devote his limited bandwidth to other information (whether his downfield targets were open). Quarterbacks in the Edwards/Manuel category had a different approach to the pass rush. If they had the mental bandwidth to pay attention to the rush and to whether their targets were open, they could have dumped the ball off short on plays when the protection wasn't there, while staying in the pocket for a while on plays it was. Instead, both quarterbacks tended to dump the ball off short regardless of whether the protection was there. This is a logical adaptation to a lack of mental bandwidth. It's especially logical for a guy like Manuel; who lacks the accuracy to consistently hit his intermediate or deep targets anyway.

One possible response to that guy: "Detroit is becoming a ghost town. Enjoy your football team while you still can."

I'm guessing that many of the media pundits complaining about Manuel's benching haven't watched the game tape. If they had, there would be considerably less confusion about why he was on the bench. As for the Flutie benching: his 1999 season was considerably worse than 1998. Maybe part of that was because of the Moulds injury. Part may have been because defenses had learned that when you go against Flutie, you take away the short stuff and dare him to beat you deep. Rob Johnson looked very good against the Colts. Even against the Titans, he played well enough for the Bills to take the lead with 16 seconds remaining. On any other team that would have been sufficient for victory! Unfortunately, it wasn't sufficient for victory with the Bills. The last time this team won a playoff game, Miley Cyrus was three years old; and the lead singer for Lorde hadn't even been conceived. This playoff drought has gone beyond ridiculous. Blowing first round picks on standard-issue bust-type QBs isn't helping any.

The tweet was completely inappropriate. The fan who sent it deserves to be chewed out by other fans. There are some things you don't joke about, and someone's mother's breast cancer is one of them. I also don't understand the idea of having personal animosity toward an underperforming player. Every player does the best he can, given his physical, intellectual, and psychological limitations. Physical limitations: Holcomb's arm strength Intellectual limitations: Spiller isn't nearly as good at seeing holes as Fred Jackson Psychological limitations: Mike Williams (the RT) didn't have the passion needed to work hard at football. At least not on any kind of self-motivated basis. It's the front office's job to determine a player's limitations before signing or drafting him. A player can't help his own level of limitations. Nor is it realistic to expect players to be accurate when describing their limits. Manuel's limitations were obvious long before the draft. No one should attack him or his mother just because the front office saw what it wanted to see.

> a large portion of this board has written him off because he's not jimbo. Or even J.P. Losman.

Agreed. I think it's quite possible Manuel does have the yips. If or when he overcomes those yips, he'll likely return to what he'd been in college, or as an NFL rookie. Which is to say, he'll play at a somewhat decent level by backup NFL QB standards.

I don't consider Kyle Orton good enough to be the long-term answer at quarterback. But I think he is good enough to be a short-term stopgap. With a Kyle Orton on your team, you don't have to be desperate to draft a first round quarterback right away. You can afford to wait a year or two, until the right first round QB comes along. The same could also be said about Ryan Fitzpatrick. Unfortunately, the Bills blew the opportunity such a quarterback represented. The first mistake they made was giving him reasonably good long-term starter money. (This was a few games after Gaiely had unveiled a new, Fitz-friendly offense; but before defenses had had the chance to figure out how to stop that offense. It represented the one moment in time when Fitz's negotiating position was at its very strongest.) The Bills then realized Fitz wasn't the long-term answer at quarterback. Yet he was being paid like he was. At that point, it would have been okay for them to continue to overpay him until they had a capable replacement on the roster. Alternatively, they could have released him, and gone without a starting quality QB for a year or two in an effort to obtain good draft position. Draft position which would then have been used on a QB. But they did neither of these things. They chose to get out from under Fitz's contract right away. That seemingly put them into desperation mode. They apparently committed themselves to using a first round pick on a QB that upcoming draft, regardless of whether any QBs deserved to be chosen in the first two rounds. The Bills need to avoid repeating this emotional roller coaster with Orton. They should not allow themselves to get so high on Orton that they anoint him the long-term answer. Nor should they get so low on him that they feel a sense of desperation to immediately use a first round pick on his replacement. Orton gives them the opportunity to wait until the right college QB comes along. The right QB will have demonstrated a high degree of accuracy, and considerable proficiency for quickly processing on-field information. If a guy like that isn't available in the upcoming draft, then wait a year. Or even two years. Orton can hold down the fort in the meantime.

My jaw just dropped. First, because the stats they're using are the wrong ones. Most of them can be inflated by dumping the ball off short all the time--which is exactly what Manuel does. And they're using winning percentage to evaluate QBs? Seriously? Did they stop and ask what the Colts' winning percentage was the year before Peyton Manning was put on the field for those first 14 starts? Were a rookie Peyton Manning or a rookie Drew Brees supposed to immediately elevate their respective teams--which had each gone 1-15 the year before drafting the QB in question--to lofty heights? If I was looking for the worst possible statistical tools with which to measure a QB's performance, I'd use the same tools they did. Carson Palmer was chosen first overall. As a rookie, they sat him on the bench behind Jon Kitna. At first, Palmer didn't look great in practice. But as the season progressed, he looked progressively better. By the end of the year, those who watched him play noticed he looked really good. Going into his second year, his coach announced that Palmer would be the starter. Compare that to EJ Manuel. As a second year player, Manuel has been performing far less well than Kyle Orton. "In practice against no defenders [the receivers often have] to wait for EJs passes while it pretty much never happens with Orton." If I'm a general manager, why would I use a first or second round pick on a QB who can't hit a moving target? Because the QB has great physical gifts? Because he interviews well? Because I've conned myself into believing that he can somehow be "developed" into having the accuracy and information-processing ability he never displayed in college? A GM who thinks that way is almost begging for a first round bust! This past draft, the Bills passed up the chance to draft Bridgewater, and the chance to try to trade up for Bortles, presumably because they were committed to Manuel as "the plan." The sooner they abandon that kind of misguided, incompetent thinking, the sooner they'll be able to draft a real quarterback of the future. Someone who has an actual chance of filling Jim Kelly's very large shoes.

Thanks for the info. What you're describing sounds like a relatively simple throwing drill. Something simple enough that it's not going to give members of the media insight into the Bills' play calls or offensive schemes. If, as a second year player, Manuel can't perform such simple drills at or near an Orton level, it's extremely unlikely he'll ever be the long-term answer at quarterback. Strong performances in drills like those is something you look for before you draft a guy. A well-run front office wouldn't use a round 1 - 4 pick on a QB who couldn't perform well in the simple drills you described.