Sisyphean Bills

http://www.nj.com/je..._shows_dev.html Sounded somewhat familiar. Hopefully, their careers do not follow the same trajectory.

I was referring to "playing hardball" with your best self-developed players there. As far as getting a 1st rounder for Spiller, that's a pipe dream in my opinion.

Is this based on Marshawn Lynch only being worth a 4th rounder? May be a phenomena not exclusively held by the fans.

The plan would be to see if Pryor can lend an arm in camp and perhaps even make the team at this point. I doubt they view him as an instamatic 1B on the depth chart because they traded the last non-compensatory pick in the draft for him. Negligible investment.

What is the connection between drafting an OT and a 1-and-done contract? 1-and-done could be the case if the pick is poor and doesn't pan out. And, 1-and-done could be the case if the team refuses the pay market rate, or yes even better (like they did for Mario Williams), for the player or the team continues to lose heavily, change schemes annually, and the guy just wants out. The bottom line in that last sentence is the team making the player, regardless of position, happy enough to actually want to be in Buffalo.

Roll the dice on a kid with little on tape and an impressive workout, or who your scouts tell you can play a position he's never played with a straight face. (Yes, I'm kidding. We've been there, done that.)

I'm bracing myself for a RB.

Isn't it smarter to let other GMs establish the trend first and then follow the herd?

Mike Williams was a RT at Texas taken at #4 overall. His childhood ballet classes and Chris Simms' left-handedness were projected by Modrak and company to make it a cinch for the coaches to flip him to LT, but the reality was he was a poor RT and couldn't hack it being flipped to G.

Pryor wants to be released because he thinks he's a starter, right? No, it doesn't sound like he'd be happy riding the pine to me either. Who's still out there? Kolb, Vince Young, and Matt Leinart?

Though, to improve the backup spot, just need a guy that's OK with being a backup and wants a gig and is better than Tuel or Lewis.

Yeah, Buffalo may not be the right fit for a menu of reasons. No argument in that regard. I guess all I was pointing out is that there could be, hypothetically, a QB that doesn't view EJ's status as one of the top line items on said menu.

A hypothetical answer: a QB that isn't worried about a little competition, has self-confidence, and feels he can relate with the OC and staff?

My sarcasmeter just went off.

I didn't think I needed to rewrite the list of numbers. I quoted it. You wrote it. It's plenty obvious it is not a clustered distribution. I was merely trying to frame the distribution and assert that it was a scattershot of performance -- from very bad to pretty good. But, no, it was never my intention to try and say QBs don't have good games and bad games. That is absurd, obviously incorrect, and doesn't really need to be argued.

First, the "Modrak Wheelhouse" was a term I coined for the general argument that people used to defend Modrak's record by pointing out the 6th and 7th rounders and UDFAs that helped the team. It's pure sarcasm. Second, it's kind of sad to imply that more attention was paid to a 7th rounder than a 1st rounder. <sigh> Finally, it's a numbers game. A team only brings so many guys to camp, etc. If the team doesn't have a ton of talent to begin with and misses its top picks and is losing players to injury, free agency, retirement, etc., then they, out of sheer necessity, simply have to play the players that they have left -- the 6th and 7th rounders and UDFAs. The fact these guys see the field doesn't really imply they are great players or that they will even win their battles and be successful. I do think it is a numbers game in the lower rounds as well. They are more likely to have a pool of players and be trying to fit those picks to what they think they need to plug roles and round out the roster.

If Modrak were still here, we could talk about 7th rounders (a.k.a. the Modrak Wheelhouse area of the draft). He did start the last 2 games for the Argonauts.

Wait. The QB rating thing is not my argument; it's your point. I just agreed with the poster that made the point Manuel needs to be more consistent -- though I was amending that to say he needs to play more consistently at the high end of play. While you've taken some time to pick highs and lows, you miss my point entirely and this does nothing to change my mind. Your QB ratings list for Manuel shows 1 game in the 30s, 1 in the 40s, 1 in the 60s, 2 in the 70s, 2 in the 80s, 2 in the 100s, 1 in the 120s. If we take Nick Foles, he had 1 game in the 30s, 1 in the 40s, 1 in the 70s, and 11 games over 100. It's pretty clear that both QBs had bad games. It's also clear that Foles had 5 games where his QB was better than Manuel on his best day and that Foles was fairly consistently pitching over 100 in QB rating while Manuel's numbers are fewer and obviously lower. So, what is your point? You said that Manuel is "consistent" in your opinion -- consistently good at home and bad away. (And, I agree that he played better at home, but that doesn't mean I have to bend a knee to your definition of consistent.) Are you just telling us that every NFL QB has a best and worst outing over the course of the season? Or do you just take exception to the idea that Manuel needs to improve AND show that improved play consistently?

Bills recent history. NOT EJ. In particular, I was riffing on the board's oft posted comment that Fitzgibbons would play well for 3 quarters and throw the game-killing interception in crunch time. I believe that was posted here 15297 times. (OK, I made up that stat. Tip o' the hat to someone I know that loves to do that. ) Thanks for proving my point. Ratings ranging from 48 to 121 are not "consistent". http://dictionary.re...owse/consistent

Consistency is the key. Hopefully, the consistency comes at a high level of play as well -- we've seen consistently mediocre and consistently choking in recent Bills history. Still, consistently inconsistent is going to lead to another regime change, Whether you look at it as "only 10 games" or "3 knee injuries", the lump of clay was simply inconsistent in his limited time.

I think this debate is a little more centered than the Edwards debate. Edwards got the love and support of a majority of Bills fans as I recall. Manuel has his supporters, but people are expressing doubts at roughly the same rate it seems.

This is a fan message board. It goes without saying that fans are going to express opinions here. It's up to you to accept the process or not.

[This is an automated response] This subject matter is being currently being discussed or has already been discussed in a previous thread. Please consider using the "search" function before starting new topics. Thank you.

On (1), why can't people form their own opinions after 10 games? Obviously, everyone is going on imperfect knowledge, but it's not correct to say no one can have an opinion. They do. On (2), "immersion in the NFL process" is not a recipe for success. One can't be a successful NFL QB if he is playing golf, obviously, but there is no cause and effect there. Rick Mirer was a #2 overall pick, immersed in the NFL for 12 years, and ... well, he doesn't fit my definition of a successful NFL QB. The list of 1st round QBs that were anything but successful is extremely long.

Fixed.