metzelaars_lives

Guess how many starts Tim Tebow has had. Exactly 14. How could we possibly know anything about how good he's going to be. Anyone who speculates that he might not become a franchise QB is just a troll and a "hater."

1. I have never said that the book is closed on EJ and that he is "useless." He could develop into a franchise QB for all I know. From what I have seen however, I find that possibility rather unlikely at this point. Perhaps more unlikely than many of the posters on here. I have never said anything otherwise. 2. EJ Manuel has had more than two awful starts in a Bills uniform. Off the top of my head, at NYJ, at Tampa Bay and at Pittsburgh his rookie year and then the two games last year (he absolutely was awful against San Diego- every bit as awful as he was at Houston). So at least 5 out of 14. Hey after the Carolina game last year, I was sure he WAS going to become the guy. I have maintained that his rookie year wasn't half bad at all. My biggest issue with him- and the one that the "14 gamers" constantly ignore- is the extent to which he regressed last offseason. He literally had one good practice all offseason- the intersquad practice with Pittsburgh. Other than that, and then in the preseason as well, he was so incredibly inept that they had to go out and make the emergency signing of Orton. Anyway we'll see.

In fairness, all of the guys we have "run out of town" since Kelly have turned out to have been worthy of being ran out of town. They should've let Flutie play maybe one more season and they should have never cut Fitzpatrick- although he wasn't a long term solution either. You also don't want to waste a season of all the great players on this roster's prime waiting for a guy to develop if your gut is that it's not happening for him. It'll work itself out. I am confident that if this coaching staff does decide to move on from Manuel that they will have done their due process and I wouldn't be too worried about him developing into a franchise QB elsewhere. EDIT: Look, I think every single person on this website would agree that if EJ Manuel can't beat out Matt Cassel in his third year in the league then it's not happening for him. I sincerely hope that people don't continue to make excuses for him if he can't win this job. If he does win the job then this debate will likely drag on for some time I would think.

I took a few logic classes in my day and I would venture to say that because other successful QB's have had slow starts to their career, that does not necessarily mean that when a QB has a slow start to his career that he will probably become good. On the flip side, virtually all QB's who are unsuccessful do in fact have slow starts to their career. You will see similar arguments on here like "Andrew Luck threw a bad pass once" or "Joe Flacco had a bad game at Houston once too." Yes, all QB's have bad games. There is no correlation between other QB's also having bad games and EJ Manuel becoming a successful QB. Jamarcus Russell's chances of re-entering the NFL and becoming successful will not improve if Aaron Rodgers has a bad game in week 1. That being said, I hope you're right.

Exactly.

Of course Fitzpatrick is better than both. I have little doubt the Bills would've made the playoffs last year with Fitzpatrick. And sure, that's fair: you have little faith in either but even less in Geno Smith. I wouldn't argue that. I would mention that people have seen Smith suck more because he's played more. Manuel was benched so he was spared from sucking all season and then people assume he magically would've improved while he was on the bench and Smith continued to suck. But anyway I wouldn't be surprised if Fitzpatrick starts the season.

Although I choose not to use emoticons, I am not offended by them in all situations. I just said that I thought your use of the guys bowing down in praise was a little much. You accuse people of trolling. "Calling out" would intimate that they are actually trolling. You say this about someone every time they disagree with you. If I were your agent, I would probably tell you to just stop using the word "trolling" altogether. As far as EJ Manuel vs. Geno Smith, the bottom line is that nobody cares. If you were at a dinner party in Chicago or Louisville or Boise and someone started an EJ Manuel vs. Geno Smith debate, the guests would start filtering out the door immediately. They have both sucked so far. You say Manuel is better? Sure, OK. It's close, I'll tell you that much. It is not controversial to say that either of them is better or worse. You certainly can't use the "well we haven't seen nearly enough of Manuel" argument and then tell me that you've seen enough of Geno Smith to tell me he sucks. Geno Smith has shown some higher highs and some lower lows. Which is to be expected being that he actually throws the ball downfield from time to time. Geno Smith's coaches, who watch him play in practice every day, have exhibited more confidence in him than Bills' coaches have in Manuel, that's for sure. Either way you can't call someone stupid for thinking that Geno Smith is a little better than EJ Manuel. They're about the same.

I was poking fun at you by saying that Collins wasn't that bad in his prime so you probably would've taken him over Luck too. That's all. It was a joke. Yes of course by 2011, he was washed up. But with no QB, they completely sucked. The Bills got very poor QB play last year and went 9-7. So the team Luck inherited was not a good football team whatsoever. And yes, they were successful prior to 2011 under Manning but that is because any team quarterbacked by Manning or Brady or Rodgers or Luck is pretty much going to be 10-6 regardless of the talent around them. That's why he's already such an elite QB. Do you think T.Y. Hilton would've been ranked in the top 40 players in the NFL if he was on the Bills the last few years?

A few things here. Number one, alright with the emoticons. We're adults here. Buftex politely questioning my stance on EJ did not warrant two emoticon men bowing down in praise. Also, with all due respect, how can you call someone else stupid beyond all repair for saying he thinks Geno Smith might be better than EJ Manuel (that's like saying you think you'd rather drown than burn to death) when you yourself have stated within the last two weeks on this very website that the Bills would've gone 12-4 last year had they not benched Manuel and that you wouldn't take Andrew Luck in your top 5 QB's to build a team around? How was your 4th by the way?

Based on what he's shown thus far, I don't think it's wrong of this sportswriter to assume Matt Cassel will win the job, nor to have the Bills' QB situation ranked at the bottom of the league. I think you could make an argument that Cassel/Manuel be ranked ahead of maybe the Browns and possibly the Jets but that's about it. Yet just the other day, Gugny along with a sizeable entourage in the shoutbox were insisting that EJ Manuel is already better than Ryan Tannehill right now. Not "I'd take Manuel over Tannehill because I still believe in his tools and his upside and I think Tannehill may be closer to his ceiling" (which would also be ridiculous) but that as we stand here today, Manuel has already proven himself to be better. I have a hard time not arguing with people when they express absurd opinions. I always have. Where do you stand on that issue anyway?

Sarcasm off: I don't think there are three teams in the AFC that have a better chance of reaching the Super Bowl this year than the Bills. Sarcasm back on: This silly sportswriter clearly doesn't get it ranking Matt Cassel last- winning the job over EJ Manuel- and Ryan Tannehill 14th?!? I come on this website fairly often and my understanding was that EJ Manuel was actually better than Ryan Tannehill right now.

I honestly don't even know what were arguing about anymore. Happy 4th!

Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson are both awesome. End thread.

Naturally. Just looked it up- Houston really only had 2 or 3 good seasons under Schaub. Doesn't change my point one bit. But yes, I was wrong. Doesn't happen often. Cherish it.

Kerry Collins took the Giants to a Super Bowl, the 2nd year Carolina Panthers to the NFC Championship game and a Tennessee team to 13-3, so you probably would've had him ahead of Andrew Luck too. And as far as playing in a division that is not very good at the moment, that has nothing to do with how good Andrew Luck is. If all of a sudden, Aaron Rodgers played in a bad division (which he doesn't play in a great one at the moment either) that wouldn't make him a lesser QB. Much the same way, now that Josh McCown is playing in a very tough division, if he puts up poor numbers this year, I'm not going to hint that he's actually good because he plays in a good division. Hell, Tom Brady has played in a s**t division his entire career. How I wish the Bills could play against the Jets, the Dolphins and the Bi- wait a second... You gotta watch the guy play man. And as far as how good the Colts were prior to the Suck for Luck year, yes, read my post on page 8- when a team has an elite QB like Peyton Manning or Andrew Luck (who is about to be ranked in the top 10 of all the football players at all positions in the NFL but still not on your top 5 list of QB's to build a team around) they are going to 10-6 regardless of the talent around them (please do not point out one of the few exceptions, it's a general rule). That is, I would think, a plus for Andrew Luck, that he was able to take a team that was that bad- even in this horrendous division you speak of- and immediately turn them into a perennial playoff team. And also, Houston has been really good for most of the last decade. They were even 9-7 last year in their first real down season since they got Matt Schaub. Tennessee hasn't always sucked either. But yes, that division will probably be pretty bad this year, Andrew Luck will throw for like 50 TD's and you will discredit it because he plays against those teams for six games.

Dude they're both awesome. Give Luck a few years as far as the playoff TD/INT ratio, it'll more than even itself out.

Look, in the NFL in 2015, if you are an elite QB, your team is pretty much going to make the playoffs. I know the Saints haven't a few times but by and large, no matter how bad the rest of your roster is, you're going to be 10-6. But in order to get over the "hump," you gotta have a good team around you as well. Andrew Luck has gotten his team to the playoffs each of his first three years- and won three games. That's good! The year before he was on the Colts, they were 1-15. Last year, he got his team as far as it could go, including a resounding win in Denver, but they didn't have the horses to win in New England. That is not an indictment against Luck. You guys realize that no QB that's ever lived was quarterbacking that Colts team and winning that game in New England, right? His team has made some moves and once that defense improves, he will start winning his Super Bowls (hell of a running game he's had so far too huh?) The comparisons to Peyton Manning and him being some sort of "playoff choker" are a joke. They lost at the eventual Super Bowl winners in Baltimore his first year and at New England each of the last two seasons. Manning has lost lots of playoffs games that the Colts- and Broncos for that matter- were SUPPOSED to win. And as if Andrew Luck wouldn't have won a Super Bowl if he was the Seahawks QB the last three years. Everyone likes to oversimplify around here- on one side is "all that matters is wins" and on the other side is "wins are a futile way to gauge a QB, it's all the rest of the team." No... the answer is somewhere in the middle. The QB is by FAR the most important player but he can't do everything by himself. Anyway Andrew Luck is not overrated, that's ridiculous.

Agreed that he is at the top of this list because of his age and also agreed that he is not Aaron Rodgers quite yet. I'm not sure anyone thinks he is. But the guy was as big a prospect and as sure of a bet as there has been coming into the league in as long as I can remember. Maybe ever?? He has prototypical size, he went to Stanford, his dad played in the NFL and he can run. And three years in, he has hasn't disappointed one bit. I would say he is right at expectations so far- I wouldn't even say that he has exceeded them. He is going to be the best QB in the league once the big 4 is gone for a long, long time. He is going to win a Super Bowl, if not several. I think today he is the third best QB in the NFL behind Brady and Rodgers. We'll see what happens this year. If he improves on last year's 4761/40/16 performance, perhaps he can achieve Matt Ryan status.

Is that the Merriam-Webster definition? My interpretation of a troll is someone who posts things so utterly preposterous that the only conclusion a sane individual could reach is that the person making said posts could not possibly be serious and that their sole intent is to elicit a response from others. For someone who is interested in football enough to spend hours a day on a website devoted only to football to come on that website and tell the world that they would not take Andrew Luck in their top 5 quarterbacks to build a franchise around is not a rational thought. It is not an opinion to be valued the same way mine or the rest of the sane posters' are. It is an opinion so incredibly and egregiously preposterous that I am convinced that you yourself- not I- are the one trolling.

Dude.

That's fair, at least you have Luck in your top 5. Or at least I'm assuming. I don't dislike EJ Manuel nor do I want to turn this into another dreaded EJ thread. Simply offering some perspective. You got a guy who is overtly optimistic about EJ Manuel but thinks Russell Wilson is merely "solid to good." Found it comical, that's all.

That was two years ago when the Saints had an historically bad defense. And Russell Wilson is not just "solid to good." He is a top ten QB in the NFL right now by any calculation. He could very well be top five. I'm really starting to question whether or not people actually watch the guy play. His career passer rating is 98.6, which would place him second all time- behind only Aaron Rodgers- if he played enough to qualify. Add to that his running abilities and leadership qualities and he's really, really good. Only on twobillsdrive can people be critical about Russell freaking Wilson and have such baseless blind faith in EJ Manuel.

He was second guessing it immediately after- well before he found out he wasn't getting any other head coaching jobs. Again, not that it matters. And I don't disagree with you either.

He has won Super Bowls with teams with less offensive weapons to work with, that's for sure. For the most part, I'm with you on the winning thing though. But the best QB's tend to be on good teams and make everyone around them better (who really believes that Jordy Nelson and Randall Cobb are two of the best WR's in all of football).

1. Please stop throwing the word "troll" around so haphazardly. 2. Why in the world won't you answer the question? If you asked me who I would take between Wayne Gretzky and Jerry Korab circa 1983, I would say Wayne Gretzky. That's it. No need to send these cryptic responses leading many to believe you would actually take Manuel. And so we're on the same page, the question is, who would you take as your QB to build a franchise around? EJ Manuel or Andrew Luck? You have said nothing up to this point to lead anyone to believe that your answer should be an obvious one. You have lambasted Luck for being a perennial playoff loser and you have stated that EJ Manuel would have led the Bills to a 12-4 record last year had they stuck with him. I'm inclined to think you'd take Manuel. That's fine if that's what you think- as you said, everyone is entitled to an opinion. So who do you got?? I am with you for the most part but winning is also not a completely arbitrary statistic either. Brees did go 7-9 last year. Tom Brady never has- on teams with far less talent than last year's Saints team.