The Big Cat

Exactly. The "issues" that Orton will have are the "issues" experienced by every quarterback not named Luck, Rodgers or Brees--those being a combination of imperfect arm strength, pocket presence, scrambling and accuracy. The "issues" that were suffocating EJ's production are ones that end careers well before the 10 year mark. I honestly don't know how anyone can argue to the contrary. Good job.

Orton played under QB guru Lovie Smith in Chicago and then for the sweat-pants-clad, Tebow-drafting McDaniels in Denver just before McDaniels limped back to Bellichick with his tail between his legs. Take a look at how Cutler soared once Lovie left and took a look at what's happening in Hotlanta right now with Hester to learn just how little we can glean from Orton's early years under Ssmith. As for his time in Denver, that was a pretty bad team. Lest we forget, their inability to stop anything on defense led them to select renowned Prussian General Von Miller one pick before we nabbed Dareus in 2011. I honestly don't think we predict much about how Orton will do with Buffalo's talent given the teams/systems he's been under over his 10 year career.

8 posts in, and nobody questioning why these people aren't wearing any !@#$ing gloves?

Agreed, but its accuracy can't be denied.

I don't understand the rub on Colinsworth. I liked him before these comments, and quite frankly, he's usually pretty spot-on in his analyses. Here's hoping that trend continues!

Quite true indeed. And while the spirit of his comments has since been significantly muffled by context, larger context also includes the body language from him and Woods during the Houston game. I think there is some validity to them being downright cranky about the QB, and knowing this, his comments were a window in that.

I'll go ahead and own this. If one thing is to be learned from this thread: When something is being "reported" exclusively through tweets from Mike Rodak, it's !@#$ing bull ****.

While all of this may be true, none of it grants him liberty to opiniate to the media about which of his team mates performs which duty better.

We all know our next four games look and I think there's some consensus as to how it could play out: @DET NE MIN @NYJ I think we'll split his quarter too, and be 4-4 heading into the bye. Just a gut feeling. Elsewhere in the AFCE: NYJ: @SD DEN @NE BUF I think they'd be lucky to split, and will probably post another 1-3 record. leaving them at 2-6 MIA: BYE GB @CHI @JAX This could be a chance for them to get back on track, but I don't see them winning more than one of those games, leaving them at 3-4 NE: CIN @BUF NYJ CHI They could conceivably win 3 of these games, putting them at 4-4, too. I think it'll be a three-way horse-race into the midpoint of the season, leaving us with very little wiggle room. The move to Orton should bring the much needed stability we'll need going into the bye to come out with a chance to win the division this year!

Listening to the audio: http://www.wgr550.com/Bills-Orton-channels-his-inner-Bryce-Harper/9034669?pid=430577 it actually sounds like Rawdick was the one who asked the stupid question/got undressed. ...write a four page paper about it and present it to the class on Friday? on second thought, may be it wasn't Rawdick: http://espn.go.com/blog/buffalo-bills/post/_/id/13901/kyle-orton-deflects-comparison-to-manuel

Let's be clear: I'm not here to help manufacture Rawdick's controversy. I do, however, think that Sammy's opinion on the matter--after 16 professional quarters--ought to be kept himself. Or at least couched, as per the actions of his veteran team mates.

The edited version is an admission of misrepresentation. Also, more globally, there was a reason I included the how-to's along with Sammy-four-games-under-belt-Watkin's.

You don't read any criticism into EJ reading those quotes? Oh I agree. But winning without hearing our young WR's indirectly talk **** on our young QB would be just as sweet, may be sweeter.

While I don't disagree with the spirit of your critique, you'll never hear a complaint from me about players talking cliches. Players being candid about other players, however...that's different. If it's that obvious, then it doesn't need to be said...by a rookie. Cuz, ya know. Now we have this: http://t.co/lGpZ1eFFR9

I think the young buck has some things to learn about big internal decisions like switching QB's: mikerodak Watkins: “The way he talked, the way he handles business, the way he looks at plays and breaks down defenses, it’s kinda different than EJ." mikerodak Sammy Watkins on Kyle Orton today in practice: “He reads it quicker, the ball is coming out faster Rather annoying that Rodak has the exclusivity on these quotes, but, ya know. For Sammy, this would have been a good opportunity to take some pages out of the vets' playbooks: mikerodak Mike Williams on WRs’ role in EJ benching: “We feel like we could have did more … It wasn’t our decision, but it wasn’t our actions either." buffalobills @Fred22Jackson: "I don't focus on the changes being made. I focus on what I can do to make us better." pic.twitter.com/ryP83uXZwP buffalobills @Fred22Jackson: "This isn't just about EJ. As an offense, we need to get the job done." MEANWHILE: JoeBuscaglia Q: Kyle, why will you run this offense better than EJ? A: I'm not saying that I will. That's a loaded question. That's a crap question.

How bout those 1-3 Jets. Let's take a second and look at their next four opponents: @SD DEN @NE BUF We have a chance to eliminate them from contention by week 8.

Sounds like you agree with me: Kyle Orton still starting for the Bills at this point in the season...in 2016...is a very real possibility.

Pretty sure he meant Atlanta. You know. THAT stellar defense.

And that's all well and good. I take issue with anyone trying to quantify a very qualitative game. It seems that all efforts to do so are either way to simplistic (Buscalia) or way to complex (Football Outsiders). And in both cases, they fail to account for a LOT of key factors that thwart the numbers in either direction. 'A' for effort, I suppose. But, again, what JWhite provides is a lot more interesting/enriching to the fan experience, IMO.

Well, it's chicken or egg, right? Is he on five teams because he stinks? Or is he on five teams because nearly 20% of the league has found him to provide some value? I contend that if he stunk as bad as you say he does, he wouldn't have started for two teams, let alone five.

He's fifth in line.

Well, he's got four games against JAX and TEN to look forward to, also. And he's got-arguably-the best player in the NFL on his team. So, they got at least three more wins coming their way, IMO.

Well, his team is 3-1. For better or worse, the guy can keep you in games. He can give you a shot to win. EJ got benched for not having this capacity, IMO.

I still wonder whether Fitz rejected any offer to restructure. Because the dollars just didn't add up. Well, he led the offense to 16 points, and with 14 yards, he was their leading rusher. So...seemed like the passing game--at least--was "good enough." KC, CIN, NE @ home--there are three games we could have/should have won, all in-conference, that would have given us a record that would have put us in the playoffs. Those three games were started by three different players. Replace any of them with Fitz, and it's a no-brainer, I think. If Orton is AS GOOD as Fitz (again, not a tall order), then I'll be very, very happy (see previous posts in this thread and others).

He couldn't see them because he was too afraid to look. His eyes don't go seven yards past the LOS. I know that seems like a wildly speculative reach, but how else do you account for it? Yeah, I reject Chicago's premise too. Fitz's achilles heel was the defense. Period. On this team, on last year's team, we're easily a playoff contender. Instead, just to keep pace with the opposition's weekly jail breaks, Fitz had to put up Stafford-like numbers to a receiving corps that had, among their starters, Donald !@#$ing Jones. He simply wasn't capable of that. And--as I argued then--only a handful of QB's in the league (then and now) were/are.