Orton's Arm

Let's say the defense creates a lot of turnovers, and often puts the offense within 10 yards of the endzone. Do you think that will affect the number of TD passes the QB will throw? What if, because of bad defense + special teams play, the offense usually has to drive 80 - 90 yards to put the ball in the endzone. How will that affect a QB's number of TD passes? And what happens when one offensive coordinator gets really aggressive inside the 20--and calls a lot of passing plays--versus another who more cautiously calls a lot of running plays? How will those things affect a QB's number of touchdown passes? If a QB drives the offense down to the one yard line, and then a RB punches it into the endzone from there, is that a lesser accomplishment on the QB's part than if most of the drive's yardage had come from running plays, but with a short TD pass at the end?

You seem to have started with a conclusion (that Fitz is a significantly better QB than Edwards) and then have cherry-picked the one stat (TD passes) which you felt would best support that conclusion. In contrast, I've found that when evaluating QBs throughout the league, both past and present, yards per attempt seems to be a significantly better evaluation tool than QB rating, let alone (of all things) TD passes! Yards per attempt is to QBs as yards per carry is to running backs. TD passes are to QBs as TD runs are to RBs. Almost everyone feels that yards per carry is a much better indicator of a RB's success than the number of TD runs. The same logic applies to QBs and yards per attempt. As I wrote earlier, a QB needs to have a yards per attempt of 7.2 to be even discussed as a franchise QB. Edwards' career average is 6.5, correctly indicating he's a long way away from being a borderline franchise QB. You could make the argument that the other problem with Edwards was being too cautious, especially in the red zone, with a consequent lack of TD passes. I'll grant that Fitz is a better QB than Edwards in that respect. I'll also grant that Fitz's style of play helps the running game, by punishing defenses for crowding the box. (By always going short, Edwards rewarded defenses for crowding the box.) But their relatively pedestrian yards per attempt stats disqualify either Fitz or Edwards from being the long-term answer at QB!

Back in the late '90s when the Bills ran a 3-4 defense, they had Ted Washington as their starting NT, and Pat Williams in the rotation as well. Washington was a very good NT. But it's not as though he was able to play every snap without wearing down. The Bills played him about half the defensive snaps to keep him fresh, with Williams getting the other half. What made the situation nice was the fact that Pat Williams was such a good NT himself. I'd love to see Troup and Jasper become our Washington and Williams. What Washington and Williams brought to the NT position was a huge part of the defensive dominance the Bills established in the late '90s.

Fitz is not a particularly accurate QB. That lack of accuracy is why his yards per attempt stat from 2010 isn't that much better than Edwards' career average. His lack of accuracy is also why his yards per attempt is so far away from the best QBs in the league.

Good post. But there's more that can be added to it. Back when Gailey was the offensive coordinator, the Chiefs had Tyler Thigpen as their QB. His career average is a Trent Edwards-like 6.4 yards per attempt. Going into the 2009 season, they traded for Matt Cassel. Cassel got off to a very rough start with the Chiefs, averaging a mere 5.9 yards per attempt in 2009. (Which is a big reason why the Chiefs went 4-12 that year.) But in 2010, Cassel averaged 6.9 yards per attempt. That dramatic improvement in QB play is a big reason why the Chiefs improved to 10-6. You could point out that Cassel's 6.9 yards per attempt average for 2010 wasn't all that much different than Fitz's average of 6.8 during 2010. And I'll grant that if the Bills managed to create a Chiefs-like OL and running game (with a 6.4 YPC average for the starting RB), and a Chiefs-like defense, they could probably attain a Chiefs-like record of 10-6. If you're building your team with the goal of 10-6, a Fitzpatrick or a Cassel is good enough. But if you're building to win the Super Bowl, you're going to need a lot more than that at QB. I also disagree with the implication that Gailey is part of the problem. He's a guy who's been handed a lot of lemons, and has made lemonade. (That previous statement should be taken figuratively, because Gailey has not, to my knowledge, ever coached Cleo Lemon. But he's still been handed a lot of other lemons at QB!)

Any time you grow a third hand, you should question whether it's as reliable as your first two! One could say that Jasper is in the Rockwood/Brandenburg category. But one could also say he's in the Stevie Johnson/Pat Williams category. Almost from the very beginning, there was significant fan optimism about Stevie Johnson. Much more optimism than had existed for guys like Aaron Merz, Lionel Gates, Jonathan Smith, Jarrett Ferguson, or Kamil Loud. Johnson had qualities which made people say, "This could be a diamond in the rough." The other guys, not so much. I'll grant there's a significant chance Jasper will be the next Mike Rockwood. But. Part of the initial optimism about Rockwood was based on his excessive height. IIRC, part of the reason he didn't become a starter was that he played too stiff, and with too high a center of gravity. Those last few inches of height may well have worked against him. In contrast, Jasper seems to have all the physical tools necessary to be a very successful NT. While that's very far from a guarantee of success, it is enough to warrant significantly more attention than a 7th round pick would typically receive.

In my earlier post, I wrote that Fitz's stats from 2010 were not markedly different than Edwards' career stats. When evaluating QBs in general, I typically focus on yards per attempt. If QB A is in a West Coast offense and goes 3-3 for 30 yards, and QB B is in a Bradshaw-style offense and goes 1-3 for 30 yards, they'll both have the same yards per attempt. Unlike completion percentage, yards per attempt is a reasonably fair way of comparing West Coast QBs with their non-West Coast counterparts. Importantly, it's also a fair way of comparing QBs whose offensive coordinators call a lot of running plays in the red zone against QBs whose offensive coordinators rely heavily on the passing game when inside the 20. The same cannot be said about TD passes. I have repeatedly acknowledged that Fitz is a better QB than Edwards in some respects. Edwards is too cautious. Sometimes you have to take chances if you're going to have success. Fitz does that, which is part of the reason why he throws more TD passes. (I also suspect Gailey is more likely to call passing plays inside the 20 than Edwards' offensive coordinators were.) But in the all-important yards per attempt stat, Fitz in 2010 failed to materially distinguish himself from Edwards. Fitz's average from 2010 was 6.8 yards per attempt, as compared to 6.5 yards per attempt for Edwards' career average. To put those numbers into perspective, Matt Schaub has averaged 7.8 yards per attempt over the course of his career. That's what a real QB looks like! I'll grant that Schaub has one of the highest yards per attempt stats in the league. Typically, if a QB averages 7.2 yards per attempt, I think he's generally a borderline franchise QB (depending on other factors), with a career average of 7.4 yards per attempt being good enough to distinguish him as a bona fide franchise QB almost regardless of those other factors.

Good point about Thigpen. I hadn't kept track of the number of games the Chiefs won while he was under center. I agree with most of what you'd written. It's worth noting that every QB with whom Gailey has worked has done significantly better with him than without him. Guys like Kordell Stewart, Tyler Thigpen, and Jay Fiedler faded into nothingness once Gailey was no longer their coach. Fitzpatrick's career average is 6.0 yards per attempt, which is the sort of stat you'd expect from a player who's somewhere between "mediocre backup" and "lucky to even be in the league." But in 2010, Fitz averaged a fairly respectable 6.8 yards per attempt. I credit a large portion of that improvement to Gailey's coaching and offensive scheme. I think Gailey would prefer better QBs than Thigpen, Fiedler, Fitzpatrick, etc. Going into the 2010 draft, the position of Nix, Gailey, etc., was basically, "we like Fitz a lot, but if there's a chance to take a good QB early in the draft, we'll do it." I think Gailey recognized he needs a better QB than Fitz, but doesn't want to make negative public comments about his current starter.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between what the players feel and what the players' union has advocated. In terms of the latter, I think it really is just about the money. While the union will sometimes complain about other things--such as head injuries, the 18 game season, and so on--the solution always seems to be, "Pay us more to compensate us for this." But just because the union is just about the money doesn't negate legitimate concerns individual players may have over safety issues. If I was a player, I wouldn't want the season expanded to 18 games either. That's just the owners trying to milk the fans for more money, and in my opinion would be bad for the NFL. Similarly, the subject of steroids does not (in my opinion) reveal any player hypocrisy. Imagine that you're the 100th best football player in the NFL; and are paid accordingly. (Let's say $7 million a year.) Then suddenly everyone else starts doing steroids. You don't do steroids. So now instead of being the 100th best player, you're maybe trying to hold onto some roster spot for the league minimum. It's human nature to want to get back up to that $7 million a year, even at the risk of long-term health complications. The same logic also applies--possibly even more strongly--for a player who's struggling to make the final roster cut. The solution is frequent testing for steroid use, and harsh penalties for those who are caught. A league in which no one uses steroids is significantly better than one in which everyone uses them!

This is very encouraging. In a perfect world, Kyle Williams would be at LDE, Dareus at RDE, and Troupe and Jasper would each play about half the snaps at NT. But for that to happen, Troupe and Jasper need to be the best NTs they can be. Also, I sincerely hope Troupe isn't reading this board. If you're learning any new skill, the last thing you need is to deal with large numbers of negative comments from people who doubt you will succeed, and are determined to dissect your smallest shortcomings. Troupe should listen to those who believe he can succeed, and those people only. He will give himself his best chance to succeed by believing in himself, believing in what the coaches tell him, and ignoring all the rest. Reading these or any other fan message boards are a potential distraction from that. Torell, if you're reading this, my advice to you is to make this the last post on these boards that you read. Instead, paint a clear mental picture of yourself as a dominant NT; and focus every day on being the man in that mental picture.

My concerns about Fitz's accuracy aren't based on stats so much as they are on watching him play. A lot of times a pass will be too low or too high or otherwise off the mark. There are good passes mixed in with the bad, but there are far more bad passes than you'd expect from a first-tier QB. Compare that to Aaron Rodgers. During the Super Bowl, he threw maybe one bad pass the whole game. (There might have been a couple others I forgot, but probably not more than that.) His completion percentage didn't fully reflect how well he played due to dropped passes, times when he needed to throw the ball away, etc. People talk about the poor supporting cast Fitz had this past season, and there's certainly some truth there. But what sometimes gets lost in the discussion are the times when Fitz's receivers bailed him out by catching badly thrown passes. Rodgers' receivers haven't done nearly as much for him, because there are very few badly thrown passes for Green Bay's receivers to try to catch! If you were to look at the ratio of good:bad passes, the difference between Rodgers and Fitz would be much larger than if you were to compare completion percentages. In addition to pure accuracy, there are two other traits Fitz seems to lack: touch and timing. By touch I mean throwing the ball at exactly the right velocity for the situation. Sometimes you may need to gun it in there between two defenders. Other times you should take a little off the throw to make it more catchable. By timing I mean the ability to hit the receiver in perfect stride, to lead him, instead of making him slow down. Joe Montana was an expert at this, just as his touch and pure accuracy were also commendable. As for whether Gailey can win with Fitz, the answer is clear. Of course he can! This is the same guy who won games with Tyler Thigpen, Kordell Stewart, and Jay Fiedler. The real question is whether Gailey can with the Super Bowl with Fitz. Unless the Bills recreate the Ravens of 2000 defense, the answer there is pretty clear-cut.

A very good and well-expressed post! That being said, our perspectives on this matter differ: you are pro-player, I am pro-owner. One possible point of contention between players and owners is whether the NFL should be considered one large business entity, or 32 smaller entities. That question has anti-trust implications. If the NFL was one large entity, it could pay its employees whatever lawful salary it wanted without creating any anti-trust implications. But if 32 separate business entities got together in an effort to restrict wages (for example via a salary cap) it could be considered an anti-trust violation. Traditionally, courts have sided with the players on this question. Their position has been, "You are 32 separate business entities, which would make a salary cap an anti-trust violation. But if the players' union is okay with it, we'll grant you an exemption." The validity of those court rulings could be called into question. If all the world's car manufacturers except for General Motors shut down their operations, GM would benefit by taking their market share. But if every NFL team except for the Bills ceased to exist, the Bills would not benefit. In fact, they'd likely go out of business. The NFL should be considered 32 separate business franchises working together as a single business entity, to produce NFL football. The most recent collective bargaining agreement was highly slanted in favor of the players. One reason for that is while the players were united with each other in demanding a higher salary cap, the owners were not united in a desire to maintain a reasonable cap. On the contrary: the owners of high revenue teams saw a high salary cap as an opportunity to outspend the owners of smaller market, lower revenue teams. Another problem was that the NFL owners had not been given sufficient time to read the collective bargaining agreement before voting on it. Ralph Wilson is no spring chicken, and he's been around long enough to know that if someone wants you to sign something without giving you time to read it, you should typically not agree! Jerry Jones led the way toward the most recent collective bargaining agreement, because he thought a higher salary cap would help high revenue teams (such as the Cowboys) while hurting lower revenue teams such as the Bills. But after looking over his team's finances for the last several years, he's since concluded he made a mistake; and that a spending war between owners would be bad for all the teams in the league. Other owners of high revenue teams have reached a similar conclusion. A few years ago, the sense among most owners of smaller market teams was that a bad labor deal was better than no deal at all. Now the feeling is that if you keep giving the players a higher and higher percentage of the revenue, without once having the moral courage to stand your ground, then in the long run you'll end up giving away nearly everything. Owners of large market teams, like Jerry Jones, have wised up. Owners of small market teams, such as the Jaguars, have grown some gonads. Those two things are why the owners voted 32-0 to opt out of the current collective bargaining agreement. Back in the late '90s, the Bills were in salary cap trouble. While a lot of that was poor planning by John Butler, that demonstrates that the Bills could spend right up to (and even a little beyond) the salary cap if they wanted to. Subsequent increases in players' share of the revenues are a big reason why today's Bills are nowhere near the salary cap. Nor are they alone: a number of other teams are far from the salary cap because of the large salary cap increases over the last decade. Some people on the players' side have made the argument that the salary cap should be high because of injuries to players. It is true that football can produce brain damage, and that this is a serious problem. On the other hand, nearly every NFL player played high school football, for which he received no financial compensation. Almost every NFL player played college football, for which his only compensation was free tuition, room and board. If high school players' brain trauma is not compensated at all, and if college players' brain trauma is compensated only minimally, then why is NFL players' brain trauma worth millions? Is Travis Henry's brain really that much more valuable than that of some straight A high school player who wasn't a good enough athlete to move on to college ball? Brain trauma to players is indeed a very serious problem, and one which clearly needs to be solved. Every aspect of the game should be rigorously evaluated to reduce brain trauma. Everything should be on the table, including rules changes, equipment changes, and changes in how practices are conducted. The NFL needs to lead the way on this, with any beneficial changes it creates hopefully trickling down to college and high school football programs. I haven't seen anything which would even remotely suggest the players' union has asked for this kind of systematic effort to reduce brain trauma. Whenever I've seen them bring up the subject of brain trauma, it has always been within the context of attempting to justify their financial demands. Some might argue that no matter how much you change the rules, there will always still be some brain trauma. So why not pay players more to compensate them for this? That kind of logic could be used to justify an increase in the NFL's minimum salary level. An increase such as that would benefit the players who are being paid the least, and consequently are receiving the smallest level of compensation for the brain trauma they incur. But that has not been the players union's emphasis. Instead, they have primarily focused on creating a high overall salary cap. A high salary cap does literally nothing to help players making the NFL minimum. Its benefits are absorbed primarily by a small number of highly paid players--the Tom Bradys of the league. I am not suggesting I fully agree with the NFL owners on all issues. But I am extremely unsympathetic to the players' union. The more I read of their propaganda and their intended aims, the less sympathetic I tend to become. If I was a player, I would be extremely unhappy with the union representation I was receiving. (Or failing to receive, after the decertification.)

The improvement you're hoping for will not occur. As I hinted at in my earlier post, Fitz did a number of things well in 2010. (Good decisions, getting rid of the ball quickly when he had to, and so forth.) In fact, he did those things well enough that there probably isn't all that much room for further improvement. Not, at least, in those areas. The thing which was holding Fitz back was his accuracy (or lack thereof). A perfectly good throw would be followed up by an inaccurate one. Severe accuracy issues are typically not corrected this late into an NFL career. Those accuracy issues are why Fitz's stats from 2010 aren't much different than Edwards' career stats. They are also why Fitz, despite his many good qualities, is not and will not be the long-term answer at QB. Choosing the right guy to throw to is useless if you can't follow that decision up with an accurate throw. Consistent accuracy is an essential part of being a good QB, and a good QB is an essential part of building a Super Bowl winner. It is a near certainty that the Bills will not win a Super Bowl as long as Fitz is the starter.

Very good post! People forget that during 2010, Fitz's average yards per attempt was a fairly modest 6.8. Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5. Not a huge difference. It's true that the Bills had problems with the OL in 2010. But they also had plenty of problems with the OL back when Edwards was the starter. The Bills also had some injuries/problems at WR in 2010. But Edwards also had to contend with numerous injuries to WRs and problems with TEs during his time in Buffalo. In 2010, Fitz had one of the best offensive coordinators in the league, in the form of Chan Gailey. For most of Edwards' time in Buffalo, he had the likes of Turk Schonert and Alex van Pelt calling plays. Fitz is a better QB than Edwards in some respects. Fitz doesn't restrict himself to the short game only the way Edwards does; and Fitz is one of the best decision-makers in the league. But even though the Fitz of 2010 was a better QB than Edwards, he was not nearly enough better to reasonably considered a long-term answer at QB.

In an earlier thread, it was determined that over the last 50 years, the Bills had used their first draft pick on a RB 10 different times. (Including nine first rounders.) They'd used their first draft pick on a DB ten different times (all ten in the first round). They'd used their first draft pick on OTs only twice (John Fina and Mike Williams). And not once over the last 50 years have the Bills used their first draft pick on a QB. (Jim Kelly was actually the second of the Bills' two first round picks in 1983; with a TE being the first.) The above paragraph goes a long way toward explaining why Bills fans are so used to seeing second- or third-rate QBs playing behind chopped liver offensive lines. (Of course, bad player evaluation played a role too, as we all know.) Obviously, if the Bills are going to devote more resources to the critical QB and OT positions, they're going to have to devote fewer draft day resources to other positions (specifically DB and RB). What can the Bills do to ween themselves from lavishing their best draft-day resources on RBs and DBs? I suggest the following: 1) Do not allow their DBs with the best combination of youth + proven experience to leave via free agency! That happened three point five times over the last decade! We lost Antoine Winfield, a shutdown corner. Then we lost Nate Clements, who was also a very good player. We followed that up by losing Jabari Greer! Now we're in the process of losing Donte Whitner. Of those four players, three were first round picks/the first Bills pick of the draft in which they were taken. As for Greer: the 11th overall pick was used on his intended replacement! If the Bills lock up their best DBs for the duration of their useful careers, they won't have to keep dumping so many early picks into DB positions. 2) Don't keep chasing upgrades at the RB position. At least not with early draft picks!! In the mid to late '90s the Bills had used a first round pick on Antowain Smith. In 2001, TD used a second round pick on Travis Henry, thinking Henry might provide an upgrade over Smith. Certainly he didn't offer enough of an upgrade to justify the use of a second round pick! Then in 2003 TD again chased an upgrade at the RB position by using his first round pick on Willis McGahee. McGahee didn't provide enough of an upgrade over Henry to justify the use of a first round pick. Then in 2007, Marv used the 12th overall pick on Marshawn Lynch; hoping to attain a significant upgrade over McGahee. Finally, in 2010, Nix used a first round pick on Spiller, in hopes of obtaining an upgrade over Lynch. Each and every use I've described of a first or second round pick on a RB has either a) turned out to be a mistake, or b) has yet to be decided (Spiller). The Bills should content themselves with later round picks and UDFAs for their RBs; while using their first and second round picks on other, more critical positions associated with longer careers. 3) Realize that it's better to have a good QB + good OL + bad DBs + bad RB than it is to have the reverse! If it's a choice between an OT and a DB or RB, the Bills should always choose the OT! Similarly, if there's a legitimate chance to get a franchise QB, the Bills should do that instead of pursuing some RB or DB. Taking Whitner over Cutler was flat-out ridiculous, and was characteristic of the outright stupidity with which this team has often been run! (As an aside, Cutler's put up some excellent numbers behind Chicago's chopped liver OL. This past season, he averaged 7.6 yards per attempt; as compared to 6.8 yards per attempt for Fitzpatricks' 2010 season.) If the Bills embrace the above three realizations, the mistakes which have plagued most of the last 50 years of this franchise can be reversed. It's about time this franchise started doing something!

I very strongly agree with what I see as the main point of your post. Namely, that if you have a young QB/first round pick on the roster, and if your OL is a mess, you have to get that mess cleaned up. And soon. And you have to make it a priority in the draft. You have to do more than just throw the occasional late round pick at players like Wang! Tampa Bay did the opposite of all that back when they'd drafted Steve Young. Other than Young himself, their early picks during that time period were generally used on defense--especially DBs--as well as on a RB taken first overall. No early picks were used on the OL, even though it was a shambles. After Young had been in the league two years, the Bucs traded him away for a second round pick. That's a good example of what not to do! But! Franchise QBs are very rare--far rarer than a lot of people think. Earlier in this thread someone made that exact point. If you don't have a franchise QB, and if there's one available when your draft pick comes up, you have to take him. Literally no other option should even be considered! If your OL is a mess, then obviously you have to get that taken care of. Drafting a QB makes the OL an even more urgent priority than it otherwise would have been. All this being said, the QBs of the future the Bills acquired during the post-Kelly era would almost certainly have failed no matter what the OL had been like. Steve Young had some success with the 49ers after he'd left Tampa. But Todd Collins, Billy Joe Hobart, Rob Johnson, Doug Flutie, Alex van Pelt, Drew Bledsoe, J.P. Losman, Kelly Holcomb, and Trent Edwards didn't exactly set the world on fire after leaving Buffalo. The only possible exception I see on that list is . . . Rob Johnson! Had the Bills given Johnson enough pass protection, it's actually possible he could have had a solid career. Granted, Johnson's definition of "enough" pass protection is probably different from any other quarterback in the league. But if you'd put him behind a Hall of Fame LT--someone like Tony Boselli in Jacksonville--and if you'd made the rest of the OL like the Jets' offensive line, there's actually a chance Johnson could have met or exceeded the expectations the Bills had when they traded for him. But the combination of a lousy OL and a QB who very clearly needed a lot more pass protection than most to be successful doomed Johnson from the beginning. Especially when it became clear that the Bills' front office was much more interested in using its early picks on DBs and RBs than it was in using them on OTs.

As long as we're evaluating QBs based on wins (instead of their passing stats), why not do the same for other players on the team? Instead of evaluating RDEs on the basis of sacks and tackles, why not just ask how many games their teams won? Likewise, it doesn't make sense to keep track of a WR's catches, receiving yards, or drops. Just count his team's wins instead. It's true that a QB is more important than any other individual player on the field. But ask yourself this question: suppose Team 1 has Joe Montana as its QB, and below-average players at every other position. Team 2 has a below-average QB, and Hall of Fame players at every other position. If those two teams were to play each other, which one would win? The answer to that question can be found in the Ravens of 2000 season. During Trent Dilfer's final 16 games as a Raven (including the postseason), the Ravens went 15-1. Some might respond with, "Trent Dilfer was a winning quarterback. He did what he had to do to win." But once Dilfer was no longer paired with one of the three best defenses in NFL history, he found it a lot tougher to be a "winning quarterback." My point here is that football is a team sport, and it's always a mistake to assign wins or losses to any one player. I realize you were not necessarily disputing the above statement. Maybe you were implying something along the lines of, "the Bills with Trent Edwards were able to come close to winning, but couldn't quite pull it off. Putting Fitzpatrick under center gave them that little extra something they needed to turn losses into wins." That would be a far more reasonable point of view than would attempting to claim that QBs (as opposed to teams) should have win/loss records! There were some advantages of Fitz over Edwards that didn't necessarily show up in the stat sheet. Edwards seldom threw deep, allowing the defense to crowd the line of scrimmage. That hurts the running game. Fitz attempted a lot more deep throws--even if he wasn't particularly accurate at making them--which forced defenses to defend more of the field. In that sense he was an upgrade over Edwards. But Edwards' yards-per-attempt stat for that year was mediocre, and Fitz's was at least equally so. If Edwards' mediocre yards per attempt stat indicated serious flaws with his play (which it did), then the same is also true for Fitz's mediocre yards per attempt stat. That's one of (many) reasons why neither QB is the long-term answer.

The above post has an eerily familiar feel to it. In the mid-'90s it was "Todd Collins is this year's starting QB, like it or not." Later it was, "Billy Joe Hobart is the starting QB, like it or not." and then, "Rob Johnson is this year's starting QB, like it or not." Subsequent starting QBs have included: Doug Flutie Drew Bledsoe Kelly Holcomb JP Losman Trent Edwards and now Ryan Fitzpatrick. Let's look at all these guys. Todd Collins was a second round pick selected with the intention of replacing Jim Kelly. It's hard to find good franchise QBs in the first round, let alone the second! Billy Joe Hobart was a player from some other team we acquired by trading away a third round pick. I suppose it must have seemed like a good idea at the time. Rob Johnson was acquired because he looked good in limited action playing behind Hall-of-Fame-level LT Tony Boselli. How he looked behind the Bills' chopped liver OL was another matter. Doug Flutie was an old, short, weak-armed QB the Bills signed in free agency in hopes of creating bitterness between their QBs, and division within their locker room. Bill Belichick woke up one morning in 2002 and decided he wanted a first round pick for his aging backup QB (Bledsoe). Since no one else was willing to meet that asking price, the Bills decided to step in and give Belichick the first round pick they felt he needed and deserved. Bledsoe gave the Bills a total of eight--eight!--good games, plus two and a half years of mediocre play, in exchange for that first rounder. Kelly Holcomb was a weak-armed backup who excelled in making good decisions and dealing with a lack of pass protection. He averaged 6.6 yards per attempt for the Bills in 2005; which is not all that much different than Fitz's 6.8 yards per attempt this past season. JP Losman was chosen in the first round. The Bills' front office figured, "a QB with immense physical gifts, who's proven nothing as a pocket passer at the college level, fits the standard-issue profile of a bust. But QBs like that can't all be busts, and maybe we'll get lucky with Losman! " Trent Edwards provided about what you'd expect a third rounder to provide: which is to say, he was a decent backup. Prior to signing with the Bills, Fitzpatrick was also considered a career backup. A big reason for that is that his career average is currently 6.0 yards per attempt--well under Edwards' career average of 6.5 yards per attempt. This past season Fitz averaged 6.8 yards per attempt; making him a slightly better QB than Edwards. But a lot of people on these boards only seem to remember Edwards' last two games as a Bill--games in which Edwards took the blame for the offense as a whole getting flat-out dominated. No running game, no pass protection, no receivers getting open, nothing. Never mind the fact that Edwards' overall play with the Bills (6.5 yards per attempt), under adverse circumstances, wasn't that much different than Fitz's past season with the Bills (6.8 yards per attempt), also under adverse circumstances. In the 2009 season, Fitz got about half the starts, and Edwards the other half. Edwards averaged 6.4 yards per attempt in 2009, as compared to 6.3 for Fitz. Yet somehow Edwards is garbage and Fitz is The Answer. It's been a very long time since the Bills have had a real QB, and a lot of fans seem to have forgotten what one looks like. Nothing about any of the above-mentioned QBs--specifically including Ryan Fitzpatrick--screams out "legitimate long-term answer" to me. Maybe the Bills didn't have a chance to get a franchise QB in this draft; and I would have opposed drafting either Newton or Gabbert in the first round. But the fact that the Bills may not have had the opportunity to solve their QB problem does not mean that no QB problem exists!

I'd like to make a comment about the bolded statement. Consider a neighborhood with 100 people. 98 of them earn $50,000 a year, one of them earns $70,000 a year, and one of them is Bill Gates, who earns $1 billion a year. The average income for the neighborhood is slightly over $10 million a year, because of the effect Gate's income has on the average. The guy making $70 K a year could be described as having a below average income for the neighborhood, because that $70K a year is significantly less than the neighborhood average of $10 million a year. But this guy's income is above the median, because he earns more money than anyone else in the neighborhood except for Bill. We face something similar with respect to Fitz's interception percentage when under pressure. There are a few quarterbacks with very high/bad INT under pressure stats. Brett Favre, for example, was intercepted a whopping 7% of the time he was under pressure. A few quarterbacks like that can distort the average, much like Gates' ridiculously high income distorted the average income for the above-described neighborhood. That's why it's better to use the median rather than the average when deciding where any given QB stands. Fitz had the 22nd best ranking (out of 34 QBs total) for the INTs under pressure stat. There is nothing praiseworthy about that! (Unless the discussion is about how Fitz would be a solid backup.) I agree with your assessment that Fitz makes good decisions, and that he's somewhere between the 15th and 25th best QB in the league. Yes, he has limitations. He'd be better off if he had a stronger arm, bigger hands, and so forth. But I don't see his physical limitations as being the primary reason for his mediocre stats. If (for example) he threw the ball with Montana-like touch and accuracy for short and intermediate throws, but was inaccurate on deep throws, then people could legitimately blame his physical limitations. Fitz is a guy who will make the right decision, and will throw it to the guy he's supposed to throw it to. But the throw will often be inaccurate, even if it's a short or intermediate throw. Fitz's good decision-making and awareness is why he did so well at avoiding sacks. His lack of throwing accuracy is why he had mediocre or poor showings in the measurements which involved accuracy; including INT percentage under pressure, completion percentage under pressure, and his overall performance grade when under pressure. That lack of throwing accuracy also shows up in his career yards per attempt stat (which is worse than Trent Edwards'), and his yards per attempt stat for this past season (which was only modestly higher than Edwards' career average). Typically, QBs with major accuracy issues at this stage in their careers don't correct them. That's why I think Fitz has hit his ceiling.

I agree with most of this, but my conclusion about Fitz may be less optimistic than yours. First, there's the question of Fitz's grade under pressure. On a scale that apparently ranged from 19 all the way down to -10, Fitz scored a -4.5 under pressure. That made him the 30th-best pressure QB of those evaluated (out of 34). His grade under pressure was 3.5 points worse than Jimmy Clausen's. Considering that Pro Football Focus graded each play individually, that grade is the single most important part of the article. Fitz's INT percentage under pressure was 3.05%. Of the 33 non-Fitz QBs evaluated, only 12 had a worse interception percentage under pressure. Fitz's performance in that category is noticeably worse than a typical NFL QB. However, he was the eighth-best QB in the league at avoiding a sack when under pressure; so that's clearly a point in his favor. It is also the case that he's good at getting rid of the ball quickly, making the percentage of dropbacks under pressure lower than it otherwise would have been. Also of significance was Fitz's completion percentage under pressure, of 39.2%. Fitz is the third-worst QB in the league (out of the 34 examined) in that category. The second-worst QB at completing passes under pressure was Jimmy Clausen, whose completion percentage under pressure was just 0.18% lower than Fitz's. Amusingly, the worst QB in the league under pressure was Mark Sanchez. Unfortunately, Bills' fans making fun of Sanchez on that basis is like a homeless man with a shiny new shopping cart giving some other homeless man a hard time about his old and squeaky shopping cart! While it is clear Fitz does some things well (such as getting rid of the ball in a hurry), the overall picture which emerged from this article was of a quarterback who's very mediocre under pressure. This confirms my opinion that Fitz is not, and never will be, a franchise QB, or anything reasonably close.

The deal the owners made a few years ago was bad enough that recently, all the NFL owners--all 32 of them--voted to opt out of it. A lockout would help restore a more equitable balance between players and owners. Keeping players' salaries from getting too out of control is necessary for the long-term good of the league. It also helps that the Bills would get the third overall draft pick in 2012 if a year-long lockout were to occur. Finally, a lockout might convince players that the confrontational and unreasonable tone used by the NFLPA had not been in players' best interests.

I read the article. Evidently Hopkins feels a similarity between himself and field slaves; and sees a similarity between McNabb and house slaves. The article leaves out any explanation for why Hopkins has reached these conclusions. (Assuming, of course, that Hopkins had provided an explanation.) The author invites us to condemn both Hopkins and his perspective on the basis of a few snippets, without first having heard his side of the story. While I do not necessarily agree with Hopkins' perspective, neither am I prepared to slap some pejorative label on him until I've heard a lot more than the author of the article has provided. The author of the article also made a disparaging reference to Rush Limbaugh's remarks about McNabb. I'd like to elaborate on that. Several football commentators--including Rush--were discussing McNabb and his stats. After discussing him a while, it was agreed that even though McNabb was seen as a first-tier QB, his stats didn't back up that reputation. The commentators generally agreed his reputation was overrated. At that point, the commentators asked the question, "Well, why does McNabb have such a strong reputation when it isn't justified by his performance? Why is he so overrated?" At that point, Rush Limbaugh made the statement that the media gave him undue praise because they liked the idea of a black quarterback succeeding. Rush Limbaugh's controversial comment was about the media, not about McNabb. After that comment was made, McNabb significantly improved his play, and came a lot closer to justifying his high reputation. Edit: for the first five years of McNabb's career, he averaged 4.4, 5.9, 6.6, 6.3, and 6.7 yards per pass attempt. To put those numbers into perspective, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt. Obviously there's no sense in planning a Canton bust for a QB who's in the same general category as Edwards! But then McNabb's average shot up to 8.3 the next year, and has only been below the 7.0 mark once since then. Even this past season with the Redskins, he averaged 7.2 yards per attempt, which is very solid. His career average is 6.9 yards per attempt, indicating he's a solid starter. But a QB needs to have a career average of 7.2 - 7.4 yards per attempt to be considered franchise.

I agree that making a false or non-credible assertion about one thing (in this case Lipsyte's assertion that Title IX is a positive thing) does not invalidate an assertion about some other subject. That being said, the reason Title IX exists is because of a false belief: that men and women are the same (except for a few physical differences), and that different behavior patterns among the two genders are due strictly and wholly to outdated and sexist social conditioning. That belief is a communist and radical feminist belief, and is false. Only someone who accepted this belief could reasonably expect college men and women to participate in organized sports to exactly the same degree. That Title IX would result in the elimination of men's sports programs should have been fairly obvious. (Or at least, those who failed to foresee that consequence ought not be engaged in the creation or promulgation of further government controls.) The UAW has done very significant harm to the American car industry in a number of ways: 1) the benefits to retirees are more than car makers can afford, 2) wages are also more than the car makers can afford, and are several times higher than what auto workers could expect to receive if they lost their current jobs, 3) restrictions on which workers can do which tasks have been very harmful. (These restrictions are of the "only an electrician who is also a union member can plug anything in" variety.) 4) The union has helped promulgate an "us versus them" mentality with respect to management. (Though clearly management has significantly contributed to that situation.) Nothing in the previous paragraph is meant to absolve management, or to suggest that the executives responsible for running the car makers during their decline shouldn't have been replaced. But it's beyond question that inflicting the UAW on any business would result in a significantly worse business outcome than would otherwise have been the case. As for the Tea Party, I agree that some of the issues you mentioned (such as gays) seem to have been chosen more for emotional appeal than because a rational argument could be made that restricting gay rights would somehow solve this nation's social ills. Immigration is in an entirely different category, however. Corporate America favors a high immigration rate because increasing the size of the workforce lowers the wage rate and increases competition for jobs. There is the claim that immigrants are here to "do the jobs Americans won't do," implying that Americans are lazy; and that there is a general shortage of unskilled labor which necessitates a large wave of immigration. The reality is that many jobs were created in response to the massive influx of unskilled labor. For example, it is not strictly necessary to have some guy with a leaf blower get rid of each and every leaf almost as soon as it touches the ground. Had this massive wave of immigration not occurred, wage rates for unskilled labor would be significantly higher, and leaf blowers would be used less often. Needless to say, many Americans are not entirely pleased by the reduction in wage rates associated with large-scale immigration. Nor do Americans necessarily welcome the demographic and cultural changes often associated with large-scale immigration. In contrast, a subset of corporate America sees the weakening of local, organic cultures as an opportunity to expand its own cultural influence. This is a clear case where the best interests of the American people are diametrically opposed to the objectives of corporate fat cats. While an overwhelming number of major American and multinational corporations have lobbied for high levels of immigration, the Tea Party has opposed it. A better model would be the one employed by Japan. Staring in the '50s, good economic policies helped Japanese companies create a large number of jobs. Eventually they created more jobs than there were available Japanese workers. Japanese companies responded by building factories in places like the Asian mainland, Pacific islands, and the U.S. In this way, people living in non-Japanese nations could obtain gainful employment without having to leave their homelands, and without having to worry about whether their own cultural values would fail to be passed on to their children as a result of a decision to immigrate. Japan's culture was also protected, and was not subjected to a massive wave of immigration. While a Japan-style solution can make good economic sense, and is sensitive to the need to maintain existing cultures, most major American companies do not seem to have even considered it.

"It's not right and it's a low character, underhanded, fowl way to run a team." I would say that those running the team have sometimes done a fowl job of running it, as indicated by Byrd's presence on the roster. Hopefully we'll never see the people in charge do a foul job of running the team.

The linked article was interesting, albeit propagandistic and pro-union. He makes good points about head injuries and the 18 game season. He seems to like unions in general, while ignoring the problems they create. (Driving the American automakers into bankruptcy, for example.) He seems to think that racism and classism are important parts of the current NFL labor dispute, while providing no clear explanation about why he feels this is the case. He alleges that the Tea Party was funded by corporate fat cats, while ignoring the fact that the Tea Party is largely a response to both political parties' abandonment of the American people in response to incentives from those same fat cats. He complains about, "a continuing pervasive discrimination against female college athletes which is frequently an attempt to protect the existence of large college football teams. Title IX, the federal law mandating fair play for women, requires an equity between male and female athletes." In 2010, the 68 college football teams which were in major conferences collectively grossed $2.2 billion in revenue. Perhaps that $2.2 billion might go a small amount of the way toward explaining why college football programs are given more resources than, say, women's lacrosse. Doubtless 98% of the reason for that preference is that college administrators are sexist pigs in desperate need of being exposed by writers like Robert Lipstyle. But the $2.2 billion might explain the remaining 2% of college administrators' motivation. Edit: from Wikipedia ******* On April 20, 2010, the United States Commission on Civil Rights weighed in on the OCR's three-prong test and procedures for implementing it. On that date, the Commission on Civil Rights released several recommendations on Title IX policy to address what it termed "unnecessary reduction of men's athletic opportunities."[39] ******** Title IX is designed to promote equality of athletic outcomes. The idea is that if your college's student population is X% female, then roughly X% of your student athletes should also be female. Because a smaller percentage of women than men are interested in joining college sports teams, Title IX effectively means getting rid of some programs aimed at male athletes to create the required equal outcomes. The fact that Lipstyle likes this particular example of misguided, unnecessary, and harmful government interference significantly detracts from his credibility.