Orton's Arm
-
Posts
7,013 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Orton's Arm
-
-
I don't think we were outcoached. Both teams stunk, just trading turnovers and punts. We got lucky on broken coverage on the long TD, they got lucky on a freak play by Watt. Other than that, the second half was two teams with two mediocre QBs making lots of errors. We out-errored them.
Good post.
I agree that both teams, and both QBs, are deeply flawed. But despite those flaws, Fitzpatrick outplayed Manuel. Fitzpatrick had 268 yards on 37 attempts; good for 7.2 yards per attempt. Manuel had 225 yards on 44 attempts, for a paltry 5.1 yards per attempt.
The two most important things I look for in a QB are accuracy and information processing ability. Fitzpatrick is 1-for-2 on those things; Manuel 0-for-2. I do not expect Manuel to have as good a career as Ryan Fitzpatrick's.
-
This really is just what he looked like in college. It's not like he deceived us or anything. It kills me to watch this guy underperform on two of my teams (FSU fan). If he starts for us next season, it will make 6 years of watching the same thing and hearing the same conversations about his potential, etc. blech.
Good post. I hope for your sake and the Bills' sake that the Manuel experiment doesn't get extended into year three.
-
So many people clamored to get Fitz off the roster. With a limited quarterback class and free agency not offering anything either it made no sense cut the guy. Not to mention his contract. So people were impatient and look what happened. We got beat by Fitz and company. Well mostly Watt but Fitz did his job well enough to get a win.
With that said, even though EJ is without a doubt the weakest link on this team, you all must remain patient and let EJ develop through the year. Benching him now would do nothing but set us back even further with developing this team We are all hungry for playoffs and want wins now. Hitting the reset button every time there is a bump in the road only makes things worse.
> Benching him now would do nothing but set us back even further with developing this team
We can give the Manuel experiment until the end of the season to play itself out. But that extra time isn't going to affect his long-term future. That future was already fairly obvious well before the draft. (As many--including me--had pointed out at the time.)
But even though there's almost no chance of Manuel ever becoming the long-term answer at quarterback, keeping him in would be associated with one advantage: the habit of discipline. Did Manuel show enough in college to earn all the chances he's being given in the NFL? No, he absolutely did not. But hopefully, Manuel's eventual replacement will have shown enough in college to deserve some patience in the NFL. In the big scheme of things, it doesn't matter whether the Bills pull Manuel in hopes of the upgraded QB play Kyle Orton would undoubtedly bring. Neither Manuel nor Orton are the answer; so any quarterback-related move they make now is just spinning their wheels.
But the habits they build today might affect their approach to Manuel's replacement. I want the Bills to take a patient approach with that replacement. And I want that replacement to have earned such patience. To have demonstrated commendable accuracy and good information-processing ability at the college level. (Two traits Manuel didn't demonstrate in college.)
Then again, it might not matter much what habits this front office or this coaching staff has or doesn't have. If Pegula is smart, he'll clean house. He needs to replace the general manager, head coach, offensive coordinator, and starting quarterback. The sooner he realizes this, the better. (But he will realize this eventually.)
-
This.
The fact that it isn't the "right tool to measure Joe Motana", but it's the "right tool" to measure EJ Manuel is ridiculous.
And if one looks at 2013 air yards per attempt and air yard %, look who's below EJ. Andrew Luck. He sucks. Or maybe it's just not the "right tool" to measure Andrew Luck.
> The fact that it isn't the "right tool to measure Joe Motana", but it's the "right tool" to measure EJ Manuel is ridiculous.
Quarterback measuring tools come in two flavors: simple and complex. QBR clearly falls into the latter category. Over 1,000 lines of computer code are used to calculate it. That computer code has not (to my knowledge) been made public; which means that it can't be examined by people like us. I think it's a good measuring stick; but I'd like to be able to look inside their black box to see what makes it tick.
Most measurements of a QB's performance fall into the simple category. Yards per attempt, air yards per attempt, interception percentage. Even quarterback rating is relatively simple (especially when compared to QBR). The advantage to any simple measuring tool is that its inner workings can typically be readily grasped. You get to look inside the box. The disadvantage is that with any relatively simple tool, there will be situations in which it overstates or understates a QB's performance. Instead of using these tools blindly, you have to be aware of their limitations.
Both quarterback rating and yards per attempt assume that a quarterback is completely responsible for all of his receivers' YAC (yards after the catch). Air yards per attempt makes the opposite assumption: that a quarterback is responsible for 0% of his receivers' YAC. Or, to the extent he is responsible, his efforts at helping his receivers create YAC are not much different than those of any other starting QB.
Neither assumption will be correct 100% of the time. Joe Montana did things to generate YAC that a standard-issue starter wouldn't have done. Those things wouldn't be captured by air yards per attempt. On the other hand, suppose EJ Manuel hits Fred Jackson with a 3 yard pass; which goes for a 30 yard gain. You have to ask yourself: what is the best analytical tool for measuring that particular play? If you use yards per attempt, or quarterback rating, it makes it seem as though Manuel threw the ball 30 yards down field. But if you use air yards per attempt, Manuel gets credit for his portion of the play (the first three yards) without having his stats artificially boosted by the fact that his receivers are really, really good at generating YAC.
> And if one looks at 2013 air yards per attempt and air yard %, look who's below EJ. Andrew Luck.
This is the strongest argument I've seen thus far against air yards per attempt. By no means can I dismiss that datum with a wave of the hand. On the other hand, it's worth noting that in 2012, Andrew Luck was the 6th best QB when ranked by air yards per attempt (at 4.22). His air yards per attempt for 2013 was 3.17--a reduction of about 25%. I'm not familiar enough with the Colts or with Luck to know why this dramatic drop occurred. Is that decline evidence of some (previously unsuspected) flaw in this particular stat? Or is it the result of an already known flaw? (For example, if his receivers had dropped a lot of passes in 2013, it would make his air yards per attempt look bad for something which wasn't his fault.) Or maybe the guy just had an off year in 2013. I don't have an explanation for the drop-off in his air yards per attempt; and I invite commentary from those familiar enough with the Colts to have the answers to these questions.
-
Perhaps the most ridiculous statistic ever compiled. Why do you suppose that there are 28 passers rated higher than Russel Wilson in that category? Or 29 better "air yard" QBs than Dalton? This stat is the height of laziness and ignorance of the teams in the league and who their players are.
GO BILLS!!!
You have made two mistakes:
1) You are confusing total air yards with air yards per attempt. The comments in your post are applicable to the former but not the latter.
2) You are looking at the stats from the first three games of this season, while ignoring them from 2013. For 2013, Russell Wilson was the third-ranked QB for air yards per attempt; with an average of 4.43. Andy Dalton was in the middle of the pack with an average of 3.64. When a season's worth of data was taken into account, air yards per attempt resulted in reasonable results--at least where those two quarterbacks were concerned.
> This stat is the height of laziness and ignorance . . .
Which stat would you recommend using in its place?
-
So we cannot use record as a starter to assess whether or not the QB is playing well enough to win, despite the fact that the team's record is, quite literally, the one stat that tells us that?
However, we CAN use QBR, the same stat that tells me that Derek Anderson is the best QB in the NFL, and that Austin Davis is better than Aaron Rodgers?
Gotcha.
Seriously folks, the total abandonment of reason for the sake of picking a side and hoping to be right is higher with regard to EJ than with any other player I've ever seen discussed on this board.
It's crazy.
I won't be move
So we cannot use record as a starter to assess whether or not the QB is playing well enough to win, despite the fact that the team's record is, quite literally, the one stat that tells us that?
However, we CAN use QBR, the same stat that tells me that Derek Anderson is the best QB in the NFL, and that Austin Davis is better than Aaron Rodgers?
Gotcha.
Seriously folks, the total abandonment of reason for the sake of picking a side and hoping to be right is higher with regard to EJ than with any other player I've ever seen discussed on this board.
It's crazy.
I won't be distracted from the facts:
He's started 13 games, and is 6-7 in those games
He's had a few good showings, a few bad ones, and several mixed bags
He has followed up his worst outings with solid games each time
This season, EJ has played well enough for the team to win 2 of 3 games--this isn't up for debate
Let's see if the trends continue.
> So we cannot use record as a starter to assess whether or not the QB is playing well enough to win, despite the fact that the team's record is, quite literally, the one stat that tells us that?
I've been posting here since 2005. You can go back through any of the posts I've written over these years, to see if I've ever, under any circumstances, used "record as a starter" to evaluate a QB's play. Not once did I do that.
If a FG kicker goes one for four, and his team wins, nobody pats him on the back afterward and tells him he "played well enough to win." If a RB averages 1.5 yards per carry over the course of the game, and his team wins, nobody celebrates that RB for having played well enough to win. If a DE gets five sacks during a game, as well as numerous tackles and even a forced fumble, but his team loses, nobody is going to accuse him of having played like chopped liver. Players at all these other positions are evaluated on their individual stats--their individual contributions. Why should quarterbacks be the exception? Why should a QB's individual stats be ignored?
If you're using wins as a measurement of QB play, what conclusions are you drawing about Trent Dilfer's 15-1 stretch with the Ravens? The Ravens of 2000 had one of the three best defenses in NFL history. Is that fact relevant to the discussion of how those 15 wins were achieved? Or does that 15-1 record represent the beginning, middle, and end of any discussion of how well Dilfer played?
> However, we CAN use QBR, the same stat that tells me that Derek Anderson is the best QB in the NFL, and that Austin Davis is better than Aaron Rodgers?
We are only three games into the season. There are going to be statistical anomalies in almost any statistical measure you use. Austin Davis has faced three below-average defenses. That's going to make his stats look better than they should. Over the course of an entire season, statistical anomalies like that tend to get smoothed out. By the end of the year, the ranking of QBs by QBR should look more reasonable than it does at the moment.
> Seriously folks, the total abandonment of reason for the sake of picking a side and hoping to be right . . .
It's interesting you should say that. After last season, I made the argument that Thad Lewis had outplayed Manuel. Thad Lewis had a significantly higher yards per attempt. At the time, that was my favorite stat. But then someone countered by pointing out that Manuel's QBR was higher than Lewis's. I hadn't previously heard of QBR. Because it was a (previously unknown) stat, it would have been easy to dismiss it with a wave of the hand. Had my only goal been to make Manuel look bad, that's exactly what I would have done.
But doing so would not have been accurate or intellectually honest. I looked into QBR, and decided it had potential. I retracted my earlier comments about Thad Lewis having played better than Manuel. With yards per attempt making Lewis look better than Manuel, and QBR making Manuel look better than Lewis, it was no longer clear to me which QB had had the statistically better season. (As an aside, Lewis's yards per attempt made him look like a solid backup/decent starter. His QBR made him look like chopped liver. Without knowing which statistical indicator was more valid, it was hard to form a firm opinion of the guy. This year's preseason, and the end of his time in Buffalo, pretty much resolved that dilemma.)
But if Lewis's low QBR was a more accurate indicator of his play than his shiny yards per attempt; then what does that say about Manuel's low QBR for the first three games of this season? Granted, we're just three games in, so I don't want to draw hard and fast conclusions from any statistical indicators. But Manuel's supporters are claiming he's significantly progressed since last season. The statistics aren't there to support that. Not QBR, and not air yards per attempt.
-
I think it was predictable Manuel would win on a Buffalo Bills fan website
It appears Vick and Orton are receiving a fair share of the votes
Okay, which one of you guys voted for Matt Moore ?
For his career, Matt Moore has averaged 7.0 yards per attempt. For comparison, Trent Edwards' career average is 6.5 yards per attempt; Tom Brady's is 7.5. 7.0 yards per attempt is a good, solid number. It's slightly better than the numbers Fitz put up while with the Bills.
Granted, yards per attempt sometimes misstates a quarterback's overall level of play. If a QB's yards per attempt is good and his QBR is bad, I'm more inclined to believe QBR. If I cared a lot about evaluating Matt Moore, I'd do some more statistical digging; to determine if there were other factors distorting his yards per attempt.
The Bills used a first round pick on Manuel, the Dolphins a first rounder on Tannehill, and the Jets a second rounder on Geno Smith. All three players are still young, and to varying degrees are being given the benefit of the doubt based on draft position and perceived future potential. Thus far, Manuel is not yet playing at a Kyle Orton level, Tannehill is not yet playing at Matt Moore level, and Geno Smith is not playing at the level Vick had back when he was on the Eagles. This presents all three teams with an interesting quandary at the quarterback position.
-
EJ wins this poll on exactly zero websites that aren't dedicated to Bills football.
For me, it came down to a choice between Kyle Orton and Matt Moore. My initial instinct was to go with Orton. But after looking up the two QBs' stats, I (very narrowly) decided to go with Moore. It was a very tough call, and something which could be argued either way.
On this website, I see that Orton has a commanding lead over Moore. If this exact poll was done on a Dolphins' website, I think things would be the other way around.
-
There's a fair amount if cherry picking coming from both sides.
One could take a bottom line stance on EJ, and simply say he's 6-7 as a starter, 2-1 right now, and coming off a rough outing, so we'll see how he responds...
...then again what fun would that be?
There was a 16 game stretch during which the Ravens went 15-1, with Trent Dilfer at the helm. Those 15 wins included playoff wins and a Super Bowl championship. On the other hand, there were plenty of times when the Broncos went 7-9 or 6-10 with John Elway under center. I do not believe that Trent Dilfer was a better quarterback than Elway. Nor do I believe that he played at an above-Elway level during that 16 game stretch. What I do believe is that the Ravens were much better at non-QB positions than most of the Broncos teams for which Elway played. Citing a QB's "record as a starter" ignores the fact that football is a team sport, and that non-QBs can also affect the outcome of games.
I agree with Brees having better games but some of the metrics they use that skew the numbers. Staying with these two guys vs vikings. Brees had a huge game 27/35, 293 yards and 77% completion. Passer rating of 120.3 but a QBR of 79.8. Brady against the vikings went 14/21, 149 yards and 66% completion. Passer rating came out to be 103 but a QBR of 86.5.
That's my issue with the "clutch index" and "probability to win" based on the passing game. If you are winning 24-7 and throw a 4 yard dump off it increases the probability to win. I understand it should increase because keeping the ball when you're winning increases your chances of finishing the game that way. But then compounding the probability to win with the clutch factor when you're already winning increases the total QBR.
The QB isn't doing anything more or less than he has all game but is getting additional points because of it. JMO.
EDIT: Also Brees threw 2 TD, 0 INTs and Brady threw 1 TD, 0 INTs.
I agree that on the surface, it seems odd that Brady's QBR against the Vikings was higher than Brees'. I'd have to dig deeper into the stats before concluding why this was the case. If (for example) Brady was much better at converting third downs, or avoiding fumbles, or something of that sort, then his higher QBR would not necessarily reflect a flaw in that metric. But if Brady was merely being rewarded for the fact his team was in the lead, then it probably does demonstrate a need to improve QBR.
My impression is that the much-discussed "clutch factor" weights how heavily each play is graded. If the game is on the line, your plays will count three times as much as plays in garbage time. Also, if your team has pretty much won the game, then that reduces the "clutch factor" associated with whatever short, safe passes you throw after your team has secured victory. Meaning your early game plays (when both teams still had a chance of winning) are more heavily weighted than your late game plays.
But if you're still not sold on QBR, there's another, much simpler statistic which reveals many of the same things as QBR. This statistic is air yards per attempt. (After clicking on that link, it will be necessary to sort the list by air yards per attempt.)
Air yards per attempt isn't the right tool with which to measure every quarterback. Suppose that Joe Montana throws a 5 yard pass to Jerry Rice, hitting him in perfect stride. Because Rice didn't have to slow down and wait for the ball, he was able to get 4 yards of yards after the catch (YAC). Montana deserves his share of credit for that YAC; and air yards per attempt wouldn't give him any of that credit.
But let's say a QB doesn't have Montana's gift for hitting receivers in perfect stride. In that case, air yards per attempt is a perfectly valid measurement tool. It strips away the things the receiver is able to do on his own, after the catch. It gives the QB credit only for the portion of the play for which he was personally responsible.
67.7% of Manuel's total passing yards have come because of YAC. That's the third highest percentage of any starting quarterback in the league. Through the first three games of the season, Manuel is averaging 2.28 air yards per attempt--the third worst average of any starting quarterback. There are eleven quarterbacks averaging over four air yards per attempt. One of whom is Ryan Fitzpatrick.
Manuel is not currently playing like a top-25 QB--at least not if his stats through the first three games are any indication. I assume he'll be given at least the rest of this season to try to improve.
-
I think the QBR vs. the old rating is an interesting debate. The new system definitely factors in some important elements that had previously been ignored. However, the thing about the old rating is that while it may not be great for one or two games, it's fabulous for an entire season. Outside of points scored and given up, is there a better predictor of success than the differential between a team's offensive and defensive (old-style) QB ratings?
To be honest, I'm not a fan of the old quarterback rating system. John Elway's career quarterback rating was 79.9. Kelly Holcomb's was 79.2. Holcomb emphasized short, high percentage passes; thereby boosting his completion percentage. Elway didn't. Quarterback rating is going to make Holcomb look better than he should vis-a-vis Elway; because it takes completion percentage into account.
Jim Kelly had a career quarterback rating of 84.4. Rob Johnson's career quarterback rating was 83.6. A QB who throws the ball away to avoid a sack hurts his rating; whereas the guy who takes the sack protects his QB rating.
A third problem with quarterback rating is that a 5 yard pass + 45 yards of YAC is treated exactly the same as a 50 yard pass.
YAC (yards after the catch) is an interesting dilemma for any quarterback rating system. Joe Montana would hit his receivers in perfect stride. A five yard pass could turn into a nine or ten yard gain. I could easily see giving Montana credit for a significant portion of that YAC. But if a QB throws a screen pass to a stationary WR, and if that WR then rips off 45 yards of YAC, it's not clear why that YAC should be treated as though it was air yards. (Which is how quarterback rating treats it.) Unlike quarterback rating, QBR attempts to differentiate between YAC for which the QB was at least partially responsible, and YAC that was purely the result of the efforts of the receiver and his blockers.
Unlike quarterback rating, QBR takes down and distance into account. Suppose a quarterback completes a 5 yard pass on 3rd and ten. That completion will be pretty good for his quarterback rating. But it will hurt his QBR.
-
I normally resist the temptation to cite the importance of individual games. They all seem to be just SO important, but this one sticks out imo so I want to address it.....
1) Houston can be beat, and it would be an important road win in a conference game.
2) Win or lose, it will be a tall order for this inexperienced coaching staff to win next week on the road for the 2nd week, in a dome, against a very talented Lions team. Not impossible mind you, but a VERY tough task.
3) EJ will be tested because of Watt, who is tearing up the league. Every EJ scenario exists:
a) He could step up and take over the game.
b) He could suck.
c) He could get hurt and Orton could win (or lose).
d) Anything else.
4) 3-1 is a beautiful thing. Yes, we have been down the road of good starts before only to see to see them go sour. That said, 3-1 is still a nice situation.
5) A win, coupled with a loss from ANY of our divisional opponents (let alone more than 1) would be HUGE. And this division isn't looking all that great, ya know?
So there it is. On Sunday I will be happier than the norm if we win and more disappointed if we lose. I truly do want this game big time! Bills Fans probably need this game more than the team does.
GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 1) Houston can be beat, and it would be an important road win in a conference game.
Agreed. I expect this to be a hard-fought, close, exciting game. However, I also feel the odds of Houston winning are better than 50/50.
> 2) Win or lose, it will be a tall order for this inexperienced coaching staff to win next week on the road for the 2nd week, in a dome, against a very talented Lions team.
Agreed. If the Bills go 1-1 over the next two games, I'd be reasonably pleased. Considering where the team is at, anything more than 1-1 over the next two games would be difficult.
> 3) EJ will be tested because of Watt,
With a name like Watt, he should be playing for the Chargers!
The problem that Watt represents can largely be overcome with good game planning and coaching. If Manuel pretty much knows where he's going with the ball before the snap, he should be able to get it there about as quickly as most other starting QBs. Granted, this implies that Manuel would only be making one read on each play. But being a one read QB isn't exactly venturing into uncharted territory for him.
> That said, 3-1 is still a nice situation.
Don't get ahead of yourself.
> On Sunday I will be happier than the norm if we win and more disappointed if we lose.
The game will be an important measuring stick. Not just for the team as a whole, but for individual players. Can the offensive line bounce back from its poor showing last week? Will the secondary improve? Will the WR corps continue to look like one of the best in the league? The more of these individual matchups we win, the more comfortable I'll feel about the team going forward; regardless of whether we win. If (for example) the Bills get dominated in most phases of the game, but win anyway due to a few fluke Houston mistakes, I'll take the win. But I wouldn't see a game like that as a harbinger of good things to come for the rest of the season.
-
FitzMagic.
His better than expected performances magically left him after he got the big $$$
That was because teams learned how to defend him. (Starting with the Bengals game.) Much like how Bill Belichick revealed the correct way to defend against Bledsoe in game 9 of the 2002 season. Or how teams learned that if you're going against Losman, you put eight men in the box and double cover Lee Evans.
The reason Fitzpatrick looked so good in the first place was because Gailey had installed a new kind of offense--something which emphasized Fitz's strengths while downplaying his weaknesses. The Bills chose to give Fitz a contract extension after this new offense had been unveiled, but before defenses had had a real chance to figure out how to exploit its weaknesses. That's the front office's fault, not Fitz's.
-
whatever. It doesn't bother you. That's great for you. It bothers me. It annoys me when you tell someone where you live and hear crap out of their mouths that have no idea what they are talking about.
Yes, but that happens all the time. Let's say you move to the South or to California or someplace. Then you start telling people you're from New York State. The first question you'll hear is, "Why don't you have a New York accent?" To many of them, New York City and New York State are the same thing.
If someone says that Buffalo = cold/nothing to do, at least he's aware that New York State consists of more than just NYC. That's something.
-
any stat after 3 games doesn't say much IMO b/c just one really good or bad game/play can inflate or detract from numbers. and like others have stated, there are many factors that play into this stat.
I personally want to see EJ hit on the deep ball more consistently. There were a couple of open targets downfield vs. the Chargers that he overthrew.
> any stat after 3 games doesn't say much IMO b/c just one really good or bad game/play can inflate or detract from numbers.
A very good point. Given that we're only three games into the season, any stat we look at should be taken with a grain of salt.
That being said, I suspect that air yards per attempt is a more meaningful stat than raw air yards. Fortunately, their list is very easy to sort by air yards per attempt. At least at this point in the season, Manuel is the third-worst starting QB in terms of air yards per attempt, with a mere 2.18. Only Ryan Tannehill and Matt Cassell are worse. To put Manuel's 2.18 number into perspective, the following QBs are at or above 4.36 air yards per attempt: Matt Ryan, Kirk Cousins, Austin Davis, Drew Stanton, Tony Romo, Colin Kaepernick, Peyton Manning, Ryan Fitzpatrick. To repeat: Ryan Fitzpatrick currently has more than twice as many the air yards per attempt as does E.J. Manuel.
There is the illusion that Manuel had two good games and one bad game. That after all three games are taken together, he's shown statistical improvement over his performance as a rookie. The reality is that most of the statistical measurements used to reach that conclusion (quarterback rating, YPA, etc.) treat a 2 yard pass + 48 yard YAC the same as a completed pass 50 yards down the field. 67.7% of Manuel's passing yards have come from YAC--the second-highest total of any starting QB. The fact that Manuel's receiving threats have gotten really good at generating yards after the catch doesn't mean Manuel has improved.
Like you said, we're only three games into the season, and positions on that list are subject to change. I expect Austin Davis' position to fall as he faces better defenses. I expect Dalton's position to improve. But E.J. Manuel faced a good defense (Chargers), an injury-depleted defense (Dolphins), and a mediocre defense (Bears). When those three defenses are averaged together, they're fairly representative of what he's likely to encounter over the course of an entire season. Unless Manuel significantly improves the quality of his play, his current position on the air yards per attempt list is unlikely to change by very much.
-
To add to my previous post: below is text from a Scouts Inc. pre-draft scouting report of Aaron Rodgers:
*********
He gets set quickly and does a fine job of seeing the entire field. His ability to make progression reads and look off receivers has improved greatly to the point where he is among the elite in this class in those facets. . . .
Rodgers should be better prepared for the NFL than most other quarterbacks in this class. . . . In our opinion, Rodgers is the most complete quarterback in the 2005 draft class and he should be the first overall quarterback taken likely somewhere in the top-five. -Scouts Grade 99/100. -Scouts Inc.
*********
The below text is from Draft Insiders
**********
He has . . . quick decision making to identify defensive coverage and get the ball to the hot receiver. . . . He shows rare field vision that has allowed him to make the proper read throughout the game. . . . His accuracy is in a class by itself. . . . He has exceptional timing and accuracy to the point that he hits receivers in stride consistently.
**********
Other scouting reports indicated the following:
********
Is extremely accurate. Played in a pro-style offense in college and has a high football IQ. . . .
One interesting comment was that the 49ers would go with Rodgers [instead of Alex Smith] because [Rogers] was closer to being a finished product. . . .
******
-
Aaron Rodgers says hi. Drew Brees missed the bus, barely, but is also present.
> Aaron Rodgers says hi.
No, he absolutely does not. The pre-draft reports about Aaron Rodgers generally talked about how polished he was, how NFL-ready he was, and the sophistication of the college offense he ran. As a prospect, he was about as far from Manuel (or any other project QB) as you can get.
> Drew Brees missed the bus, barely, but is also present.
Prior to the draft, Drew Brees was also considered polished and NFL-ready.
However, it's worth mentioning that the year the Chargers took Brees, they had the first overall pick of the draft. They traded that pick away to the Falcons, who used it on Michael Vick. The Chargers took LaDanian Tomlinson with the top-5 pick they acquired from the Falcons.
The point of all this being that Brees initially found himself on an absolutely terrible football team. That seems to have slowed his development at the NFL level.
-
Watched Bortles all preseason, about 6 or 7 games last year at UCF, and this past weekend in the 2nd half. I can't remember too many QB's who look this comfortable and NFL ready as a rook. The guy is gonna be something special for the Jags for years to come.
Makes me wish the Bills had traded up to 2nd overall, not 4th overall.
Not that I have any objection at all to Watkins. I think he's a fine football player; and could easily be the next Andre Reed.
-
I recently read the explanation of how QBR works, basically. It strikes me as a pretty cool metric. No credit for garbage time!
I like the fact QBR doesn't give you credit for garbage time. I'm gradually coming to adopt it as my favorite QB evaluation metric.
They can, in context. Ignoring stats and only relying on your "eye" is just as incomplete of an analysis as only looking at stats. A complete and competent analysis takes quantitative and qualitative evidence into consideration.
I think that you and I see eye to eye on this.
However, it's worth bearing in mind that most of the people here haven't studied statistics, don't work with statistics, and don't have a strong grasp of statistics. As such, they don't have the statistical tools to defend themselves from the incorrect use of stats. Their main line of defense is the eyeball test.
As I'm sure you're aware, plenty of stats can become distorted or inflated. A QB's completion percentage can be inflated by focusing on dump-off passes. His yards per season can be inflated if his offensive coordinator adopts a pass-happy offense. But you see statistics like those thrown around here all the time. A few years ago it was pointed out that Ryan Fitzpatrick was throwing for about as many yards per season as Jim Kelly. Lots of people here didn't see Fitzpatrick's performances as Kelly-like. But they were unable to come up with a good statistical counterargument. So they relied on the eyeball test.
(As an aside, the correct statistical counterargument to the Kelly/Fitzpatrick comparison is that Kelly was in a run-heavy offense; whereas Fitzpatrick's head coach couldn't possibly have been more pass-happy. Passing yards per season is a distorted measuring tool which makes Kelly look worse than he should and Fitzpatrick look better than he should. However, Kelly had significantly more yards per pass attempt--correctly indicating Kelly to have been the better QB.)
If you want people to use stats plus the eyeball test, that's fine. But then there needs to be an effort to teach people how to correctly use stats. Otherwise you'll get people comparing Rob Johnson's quarterback rating with Jim Kelly's, or Fitzpatrick's yards per season with Kelly's; and coming up with all sorts of nonsense.
-
Because critical analysis is failing you. He's 18th among qualified QBs:
http://espn.go.com/n...sPerPassAttempt
Less than a quarter-of-a-yard behind Peyton Manning and ahead of Aaron Rodgers, Jay Cutler, and Tom Brady.
This is turning comical the more that folks try to prove with statistics.
Absolutely...he was NOT good yesterday by any measure. I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
Let's give the kid a chance to rebound as he did last year.
I clicked on the link you provided, and found that as of right now, Ryan Fitzpatrick has the third-highest YPA of any quarterback this season.
Yes, I realize that guys like Manning, Brees, and Brady are getting older; and that there aren't young quarterbacks of similar caliber to take their places. But despite this decline in the NFL's overall level of QB talent, I think we can safely agree that Ryan Fitzpatrick is not a top-5 QB.
One of the problems with yards per attempt is that if a QB throws a 2 yard pass, which goes for a 50 yard gain, the QB gets exactly as much credit as if he'd completed a pass to a target 50 yards downfield.
QBR solves this problem by giving most of the credit for yards after the catch to the receiver, not the quarterback.
Thus far, Manuel's receivers have done a very good job of turning short passes into long gains. Which is why, three games into the season, Manuel is 18th best in terms of yards per attempt, but only 32nd best in terms of QBR.
-
How so? He played one decent game that resulted in a loss.
The previous week he threw for 230 yards and zero TDs against one of the 3 worst teams in football.
In limited duty in week 1, he threw for 190 yards with zero TDs and an interception in a loss to Matt Cassel and the 1-2 Vikings.
Meanwhile, EJ has played 2 solid games (one on the road against a team that beat SF on the road at night, and one at home against a divisional opponent) and 1 stinker (against a team that beat the Superbowl champs the previous week).
So remind me how he's playing better than EJ? Must be the 1 decent game he played against a defense that was among the worst all-time units in the history of professional football last year.
Hyperbole can be fun, but sensible points are much more suitable for discussion IMO.
Austin Davis's QBR for 2014 is 66.7. That's a very solid stat. In theory, an average NFL starter is supposed to have a QBR of 50. I suspect there could be a little grade inflation; and that a typical NFL starter might have a QBR that's a little higher than 50.
To put these numbers into perspective, Ryan Fitzpatrick typically averaged a QBR of 45 - 50 during his time with the Bills. Austin Davis is clearly playing at a higher level than Fitzpatrick--or at least things seem to be that way for the first three games of the season.
Last season, Manuel had a QBR of 42.3--meaning he was slightly worse than Fitzpatrick had been while with the Bills. This season, Manuel's QBR is a lowly 31.1. Over the first three games of the season, his statistics aren't even in the same neighborhood as Austin Davis's.
However, it's worth pointing out that 1/3 of Manuel's season was played against a good Chargers defense; and 1/3 of Austin's season was played against a poor Dallas defense. Once more games have been played, statistical anomalies like that will have been smoothed out. At that point we'll have a better measurement of the extent to which Austin Davis is outplaying Manuel. It's also possible that Manuel will improve over the course of the season; closing the gap which currently exists between his own play and Davis's. I personally don't see what Manuel has done to lead us to expect such an improvement; but it's still a possibility.
-
I wish more people felt this way.
During the Edwards vs. Fitz debates people would constantly use Trents comp% as reason for his superiority... I always felt Fitz was better. I got my point across by showing how Fitz doubled the production of TO and Lee when he played as opposed to Trent and that was more important that Trents comp %.
Good post.
Completion percentage is a potentially very misleading stat. It's easy for a QB to inflate his completion percentage with lots of short dump-off passes. One of the reasons that the quarterback rating system is useless is because it takes completion percentage into account. Kelly Holcomb--a guy not afraid to dump the ball off short--has a nearly identical career quarterback rating as John Elway. Quarterback rating is a broken stat!
Total Quarterback Rating--or QBR--is a much better, more accurate way of assessing a quarterback's performance. I'm gradually coming to believe it's even better than yards per attempt. (Though either QBR or yards per attempt are much better stats than quarterback rating.)
Manuel's performance against the Chargers represented the second-worst QBR of his career. I expect his QBR for the rest of the season to be closer to 42 (his rookie year average) than to 8.4 (his QBR against the Chargers).
-
Which would be fine & dandy if this was his rookie year, the GM didn't trade away last year's first rounder & didn't set playoffs as the goal for this season. If this was year 0 of the rebuilding project, then it's a very sound strategy. But Bills can't have it both ways. They can't stack the roster with good players, all expecting to win, and then fall back on "we need to wait on our QB to mature next year" excuse.
You're right, there's nothing that can be done for this year, but without a first rounder next year, there may not be much to do next year either.
I get what you're saying. In fact, I said the same things myself--first when the Bills took EJ in the first place; then when Whaley traded away next year's first round pick.
Don't get me wrong. I'm very impressed with Watkins as a player. He's significantly ahead of where I'd expected him to be at this point in his career.
But before investing two years' worth of first round picks into a single WR, it generally makes sense to get the QB position taken care of. From the get-go, Manuel represented an extremely risky prospect; with failure much more likely than success. It's one thing for a team to use a second or third round pick on a guy like that, and to try him out as an experiment. It's another thing for a team to use a first round pick on him; and then start building around him as if they were "set" at quarterback.
-
The weird thing is that by going so conservative... they really aren't. Either let him play when the situation calls for it, or give the job to a game manager QB.
Their overall approach seems to be to diminish the importance of the QB position as much as possible. To win with defense, a good running game, and a positive turnover ratio. Even with all that, the QB will still need to make plays. Which is why the Bills gave Manuel a receiving corps of Watkins, Woods, and Williams. These are guys who can outplay their defensive counterparts. Guys who make Manuel's life a lot easier.
Seattle is a good example of a team which succeeded in implementing the broad strategic vision the Bills seem to have. Due to the Seahawks' dominance at non-QB positions, Russell Wilson doesn't have to be a hero for that team to win games. He just has to make the throws which are there.
As for Manuel, he will first have to prove he can succeed in this limited, game manager role, before the Bills decide to ask him to do more.
-
Except you dont know that you have a bad QB.....the only thing you know is that your young QB had a bad game.
A good point.
Prior to the season, the Bills declared--by word and action--that they were going all in on EJ. I felt (and feel) that that was the wrong approach. But whether the Bills made the right or wrong decision is beside the point--at least for the present. Right now, the Bills have no young QB on the roster--no one to evaluate--except for EJ. The Bills know, or should know, what they have in Kyle Orton. Orton isn't the long-term answer. They should use the remainder of the season to gather more data on Manuel. They gain nothing by allowing Manuel/Orton to turn into another Losman/Holcomb situation.
Manuel should remain the starter for the rest of the season. Then in the offseason, the Bills should look at the data, and realistically assess what they have or don't have in Manuel. If their degree of confidence in him is low, they should make it a high priority to bring in some other QB of the future. (Even if there's still some chance of Manuel panning out.) They should also bear in mind that it's better to wait a year or two for the right prospect, than it is to jump at the first guy who seems halfway credible.
But--again--none of this should be decided until the offseason. That will give Manuel plenty of chances to show whether the Chargers game was an anomaly or the real deal.
EJ is a coach killer
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Manuel isn't accurate on basic throws. Throws that an NFL QB needs to routinely make. Nor was his accuracy as a college QB anything to write home about. Any offensive coordinator is going to look bad when his quarterback can't even complete throws like those.
That's not to suggest that Hackett is the next Bill Walsh. On the contrary: Hackett's offenses are about unimaginative and predictable as could be. Does Hackett need to be replaced? Yes, absolutely. But it isn't Hackett's fault that Manuel isn't even displaying the level of accuracy I'd expect from a competent backup. Replacing the offensive coordinator isn't going to change Manuel into something he's not. It's very likely that Manuel will never be an accurate QB, and will never be a QB who makes multiple reads before taking the check-down.