Orton's Arm

I personally feel that Andre Johnson would have a slight edge over Marvin Harrison in his prime. On the other hand, it's quite possible that if I refreshed my memory by re-watching some tape of Harrison in his prime, that I'd change my opinion.

> That regression analysis doesn't seem to be able to explain Schaub's decidedly un-leite win/loss > record of 44-36 compared to Manning's 154-70 and Brady's 136-39. Maybe that's because wins and losses are accumulated by teams, not by specific players.

You've made a number of good points in your post. On the other hand, I'll point out that Manning and Brady have had some very good receivers too. For a while Brady had Randy Moss. More recently he had Gronkowski, Hernandez, and Wes Welker. You could say that any one of those guys is not as good as Andre Johnson, and you'd be right. But all three of those guys are good to very good; and their collective impact is greater than Andre Johnson's. As for Peyton Manning: for most of his career he had Marvin Harrison, Reggie Wayne, and Dallas Clark. While Marvin Harrison wasn't as good as Andre Johnson, he was still a very good #1 WR. With a guy as good as Reggie Wayne lining up as the #2 WR, Peyton Manning had no reason to complain about his receiving options. As for RBs taking pressure off of the passing game: for most of Manning's time with the Colts, Edgerrin James was present. James gave Manning a weapon with which to take pressure off the passing game. Arian Foster's career average yards per carry is 4.5--a good solid number. A better number than James'; and equal to Fred Jackson's career average. When all offensive positions--not just #1 WR and RB--are taken into account, I think that Schaub's offensive supporting cast wasn't all that much different than Brady's or Manning's. Even if Schaub's cast was slightly better than the other two QBs', his yards per attempt was slightly better than theirs as well. It's much easier to make the case that Schaub should be considered a top-5 QB than it is to argue the opposite.

That was a good read. As others have pointed out, there are strong parallels between the Browns and the Bills. Cleveland is on Lake Erie. Both teams have endured more than their fair share of football-related heartbreaks. And now Browns fans have learned there are serious questions about how long current ownership will be in place. With no real succession plan.

K-9 is right: I'm about to cite Schaub's YPA stat. But before I do, I'll give you a little background. A regression analysis performed by The New York Times found that six variables explained 80% of the observed variation in teams' winning percentages. These six variables were yards per pass attempt, interception percentage, yards per running attempt; and the defensive equivalents thereof. Of the three offensive variables, yards per pass attempt is three times as important as INT percentage or yards per rushing attempt. So let's look at a few numbers, shall we? Just to make K-9 happy. Yards per pass attempt (career) Tom Brady: 7.5 Peyton Manning: 7.6 Matt Schaub: 7.8 INT percentage (career) Tom Brady: 2.1% Peyton Manning: 2.7% Matt Schaub: 2.5% If a no name defensive end starts getting 17 sacks a season, wouldn't it be time for us to start describing him as elite? By the same token, if a guy like Schaub puts up numbers at least as good as the best QBs in the game, doesn't he deserve to be put in that same elite category?

An excellent point. Obviously, someone is getting those 114 INTs. I personally consider Matt Schaub an elite QB; but other than him Byrd hasn't intercepted anyone I'd consider good. There have been times--especially in 2009--when Byrd was the beneficiary of an exceptional number of bad QBs/bad throws. He's feasted off the likes of Sanchez and other scrub QBs. If you look just at the raw number of INTs he's had, that probably overstates what you can expect going forward--especially when playing against a decent QB. There's a lot more to Byrd's game than just the interceptions. That "more" is a big reason I'm hoping he's re-signed. But his INT total is, as you say, inflated.

> The last one you linked is a quote from Chris Trapasso I believe. Trapasso's an amateur working in Yahoo's equivalent of the Bleacher Report. The author of that piece is a Bills fan; and I'm fairly sure he doesn't get paid for his writing. By no means am I suggesting the guy is bursting with credibility. Before the draft, he had Manuel rated as the third or fourth best QB (I don't remember which). But a few weeks after the draft, he'd convinced himself Manuel had been the best available prospect all along. His endorsement of Manuel is much less credible than yours; because you've been touting him as the best available QB long before the draft. The only reason I quoted the article at all was because of the line indicating that nowhere on the Internet can he find a credible source describing Manuel as NFL-ready. A guy like that may not exactly be the world's best football analyst, I thought to myself, but odds are he's probably spent a fair amount of time scouring the Internet for draft-related articles. If he says no credible source has described Manuel as polished or NFL-ready, odds are he's probably right. But if he's wrong, and if there are articles by credible NFL sources describing Manuel in those terms, I'm sure one of Manuel's legion of supporters will find it. Thus far no such article has been brought to light; which leads me to believe the quoted statement is probably accurate. > Walter Football is not credible to me. My opinion of Walter Football is higher than yours. But I'll try to bear your opinion in mind; and use sources other than them if trying to persuade you. > I really have no explanation for the somewhat lukewarm consensus on EJ but when I vetted him, > watched every play from about a dozen games, read all the articles, saw his interviews, watched > his workouts, I couldn't understand why he wasn't the top rated QB in the draft and I couldn't see > why he wasn't considered a blue chip prospect. As a general rule I tend to ignore player interviews. There is no statistical correlation between how well someone does in a job interview and subsequent job performance. Part of that is undoubtedly because a person who raises serious red flags in an interview tends not to get hired in the first place. At the opposite end of the spectrum, people who do the best in job interviews are probably those who have deliberately cultivated the talent of telling the job interviewer whatever he wants to hear. As for the articles--when I read an article about a QB prospect, I have a mental checklist in my head. The checklist has words like "accuracy," "physical tools," "information processing speed," and so on. For example, the article JohnC recently cited about Manuel--the one with Greg Cosell's assessment of Manuel--contains no commentary about his decision-making or information processing speed. No new information about that item on my checklist, I think to myself. Opinions about the QB prospects of 2013 varied greatly. There is no one consensus view on a guy like Manuel. But there does seem to be a consensus or near-consensus about most of the specific items on my checklist. He has great physical tools by all accounts. No credible source that I've seen claims he ran a complex, 3 - 4 read offense at FSU. He's demonstrated reasonably solid intellectual achievements off the field; both in the classroom, and by getting about the same Wonderlic score as Roethlisberger. Reports on his throwing accuracy are more mixed; but those who praise his accuracy seem to outnumber those who have raised concerns. I've heard generally positive reviews about his work ethic and character; and I expect him to have a very different personality than Jamarcus Russel or Ryan Leaf. If a person is watching film of Manuel, or reading an article about him, or watching one of his workouts, the purpose should be to gather more information with respect to each item on the checklist. Once each item on the checklist is as accurate as possible, you'll be one step closer to forming a reliable composite picture of the guy. The next step is deciding how heavily to weight each item on the checklist. Below is my personal list: 1a. Information processing ability/mental bandwidth 1b. Throwing accuracy 3. Competitiveness/will to win 4. The ability to hit receivers in perfect stride 5. Touch 6. Leadership 7. Toughness 8. Physical tools

The most important question one can ask about a quarterback is whether he's capable of quickly and accurately processing large volumes of information. In this regard, a number of concerns have been raised about Manuel. For example: From Walter Football ********** NFL sources who watch Florida State closely have told WalterFootball.com that Manuel is not a natural pocket passer. They don't feel he is as accurate as his completion percentage indicates. . . . The scheme that the Seminoles run also came under criticism. The view is that it is extremely basic and does not have Manuel well-prepared to run an NFL offense. Our sources believe that Manuel too often looks to run when his first-read is covered rather than quickly looking to his second and third options. ********** From Mel Kiper: ********** I just think the No. 16 pick was way too high for EJ Manuel. . . . He needs to prove that he's capable of getting through progressions quicker and getting the ball out. He was my No. 6-ranked QB. ********** From the Sports Xchange: ******* Manuel will need work, like developing the ability to read the entire field and make his progressions. ******* From Yahoo! Sports: ******* I'm confused about EJ Manuel. Literally nowhere on the Internet can I find someone with a respected football opinion to tell me he's ready to be a starter in the NFL. ******* NFL.com also referred to Manuel as a project QB. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any college QB described as "raw" or a "project" who went on to have a successful NFL career. On the other hand, I can think of quite a few college QBs described as "polished" and "NFL-ready" who went on to achieve sustained NFL success.

> An interesting question regarding Rodgers is whether he would have turned out to be the qb that > he is today if he didn't ride the bench for a few years and then become the starting qb? Aaron Rodgers in his prime is a better QB than Peyton Manning in his prime. Peyton Manning was thrown to the wolves as a rookie. I don't think that being thrown to the wolves early, alone, would have been sufficient to spoil Rodgers' career. Earlier I cited Bledsoe as an example of a QB who was much more successful in one system than in another. Rodgers is a much better QB than Bledsoe or Bradshaw. If Bledsoe or Bradshaw can flourish only under exactly the right circumstances, I think a guy like Rodgers would prove much more flexible and resilient. Look at what he did in the Super Bowl. He had no running game, no offensive line, and a lot of offensive players were hurt. But with the exception of one or two throws, Rodgers played a perfect game. As perfect a game as I can ever remember a quarterback playing. The lack of running game and OL was not unique to that Super Bowl. Seldom throughout Rodgers' career have the Packers done a particularly good job protecting him, or giving him a good running game. I imagine they made up for that by helping Rodgers in other ways: good coaching, a stable offensive system, etc. His situation could have been been worse--but it also could have been a lot better. Would Rodgers have been good enough to succeed in a "worst possible" situation? Given how well he's dealt with the significant adversity he has faced, I could easily imagine him overcoming still more. Would he look as good in a "worst possible" situation as he does now? No. But he'd play well enough that you'd still be able to see signs of greatness.

Bah! You're using my own words against me! I agree that according to the category system I outlined earlier, both Rodgers and Manuel belong in category 3. But just as not all 6th round QBs turn out to be Tom Brady, not all category 3 QBs turn out to be Aaron Rodgers.

> I am less enamored with Bledsoe than you are. I never said I was enamored with Bledsoe. I opposed the Bledsoe trade at the time it was made. I felt like an idiot during his first eight games as a Bill. But then after that, I realized I was right and the Bills were wrong. It was a depressingly familiar realization. The point I was making wasn't that Bledsoe is underrated--he isn't--but that Terry Bradshaw may be overrated. Yes, Bradshaw looked incredible during the '70s. But that was exactly the right situation for him; and a lot of what made it the right situation was that his offensive supporting cast dominated their defensive counterparts. During the latter part of his career Bledsoe typically didn't have that luxury; which is the main reason why his results differed from Bradshaw's. Put another way: had TD traded for a 30ish Bradshaw back in 2002, Bradshaw would have looked just as mediocre in 2003 and 2004 as Bledsoe had; and for the same reasons. Anything Bradshaw could do, Bledsoe could do about equally well. Without a significant advantage over Bledsoe in any aspect of his game, there's nothing Bradshaw could have done to have avoided a Bledsoe-like fate. > What I do know for sure is that he is mobile and he has a strong and accurate arm. (Traits that Fitz never had and never will have.) Losman was also mobile with a strong arm. I'll grant that Manuel is significantly more accurate than Losman--at least on short to intermediate passes. > Does he have an adequate football acumen that will allow him to succeed? This is the $100 million question. J. Gun Boone: The Packers trusted their evaluation and their projection of that high-upside prospect. Yes, but the parallel is not exact. Rodgers has a significantly higher Wonderlic score than Manuel. I'm not saying the Wonderlic is the end-all, be-all. But at least they had something to indicate Rodgers might have the capacity for superior on-field intelligence. Manuel's Wonderlic score is solid and respectable--but not in the Aaron Rodgers category.

What I would like the Bills to do is draft a QB. An elite prospect with decent physical tools, good to great accuracy, and a penchant for quickly and accurately processing large quantities of on-field information. What the Bills will do is draft a non-QB. The strongest possibilities are DL and CB.

> Your high assessment of Rodgers is the same view I have. I consider him currently to be the best qb in the game. Agreed. If I was the GM of an expansion franchise, and if I could choose a rookie version of any active player, I'd pick Aaron Rodgers. > Although he has played behind a poor OL and didn't have a credible running game to take the pressure off of him he still excelled. You and I are on the same page. His fast information processing ability allowed him to produce at a high level, despite the bad OL and the lack of a running game. Compare that to a guy like Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw produced at a high level as well. But he had a tremendous running game, a fantastic OL, and two Hall of Fame WRs. A perfect situation. Bradshaw's most important strengths were his big arm and his ability to throw accurate intermediate to deep passes. He had the right tool set to take advantage of the opportunities his outstanding offensive supporting cast gave him. But what about other QBs with those same strengths? Take Drew Bledsoe for example. Like Bradshaw, Bledsoe had a big arm, and very good accuracy on intermediate to deep throws. For the first part of Bledsoe's career, he played at a Hall of Fame level. You could mention him in the same sentence as Bradshaw without raising any eyebrows. But then something changed. The Patriots' offensive line got worse; and they responded by making their offense less dependent on intermediate to deep throws; and more reliant on shorter passes. Bledsoe was not a good fit for this new style of offense, and his numbers declined. During Bledsoe's first eight games as a Bill, it seemed as though the old, Hall of Fame Bledsoe had returned. Everything was just perfect for that style of quarterback. But then he went up against Bill Belichick. I've read that, after the snap, it takes Bledsoe over three seconds to see what Brady can see in less than two. Belichick understood that weakness, and understood how to exploit it (pass rush up the middle). If you'd put Bledsoe through a time machine to make him the starting quarterback for the '70s Steelers, he probably would have had about the same level of success Bradshaw had. He wouldn't have had to worry about Belichick-devised defenses, or his OL getting manhandled by the other team's pass rushers, or a lack of commitment to the running game, or any of the other problems Bledsoe experienced during the last 2.5 years of his time with the Bills. Everything would have been all set up for him to keep producing at the same level we saw during his first eight Bills games. Manuel is much more mobile than Bledsoe. Hopefully the Bills' offensive supporting cast will be better now than it was from 2002 - 2004. Maybe that combination of factors will allow Manuel to succeed where Bledsoe failed. On the other hand, Bledsoe's long balls were more accurate than Manuel's. It's possible that Manuel processes information more slowly than Bledsoe did. If the coaching staff designs an offense to maximize Manuel's strengths, without asking him to be something he's not, then there's a chance he'll succeed. This is not the quarterback experiment I would have chosen, but now that they've committed to Manuel, they may as well give this their best shot.

Good points, and a well-expressed post. No Super Bowl-winning quarterback currently in the NFL has scored below a 25 on the Wonderlic. (The 25 was Roethlisberger.) You are correct to cite Roethlisberger as an example of a modern-day QB who has success despite not being the most cerebral guy ever to have donned a uniform. The Bradshaw example is a little weaker, because one could credibly argue that the game's complexity has increased since the '70s; which would make a modern-day Bradshaw clone less successful than Bradshaw had been. To return to the Roethlisberger example: I'd argue that in the Green Bay/Steelers Super Bowl, the Steelers had the better overall team. But the Packers had the better quarterback. Roethlisberger is very good--don't get me wrong--but Aaron Rodgers is significantly better. And the reason Rodgers is better is because of what's between his ears. At this point in the discussion, there will be many who will say something along the lines of, "Manuel doesn't need to be another Aaron Rodgers. I'd be perfectly content--thrilled!--if he was the next Roethlisberger." Given that Manuel's Wonderlic score is slightly higher than Roethlisberger's, that possibility definitely exists. And maybe that's the plan. Maybe the coaches are planning on designing an offense for Manuel similar to the one Roethlisberger employs at Pittsburgh; while hoping for the same results. On an instinctual level, I feel more confident with a highly cerebral, accurate QB than I would with someone like that. But I acknowledge the Roethlisberger model can be successful as well.

I too felt Trent Edwards would be successful--hence my screen name. A quarterback good enough for Bill Walsh is good enough for me, I thought to myself. The pre-draft evaluation of Edwards was that it was hard to evaluate his decision-making, because he played without an offensive line. Had his OL given him a more normal amount of time in the pocket--and had he used that time to make good decisions--that aspect of his game would have been less of a question mark. And maybe you're right. Maybe he did have the innate capacity to process information quickly; but was held back by a need for perfection or some other mental block. As you hinted, he had exactly the wrong coaching staff. He needed coaches to encourage him to take more risks and play more aggressively. That's not necessarily an approach I'd associate with Dick Jauron and his staff. As for Losman: Forbes ranked Tulane 129th back in 2012. That's respectable, but not nearly as good as Stanford. Unlike Stanford, I have the feeling Tulane is willing to lower its admissions standards for athletes on scholarship (such as Losman). Losman earned a political science degree at Tulane. At least at the school I attended, political science was considered one of the easiest available majors. Maybe it's different at Tulane. Also, Losman got a low score the first time he took the Wonderlic; and a more respectable score the second time around. Normally such increases in scores are the result of studying; which means that the first score is more indicative of future success than the second. Overall, there's nothing at Losman's off-field academic credentials which jumps out at me; or which would indicate any particular proclivity for quickly and accurately processing large quantities of football information.

> I agree with you that some qbs, if not most, simply don't have the capacity to be an impactful qb. How do you determine that ability? You've raised a very good question. A team typically does not evaluate more than one (or at most two) QBs of the future at any given time. Normally a "QB of the future" will be given several years to prove himself before his team will give up on him. So how do you decide which players to allocate "QB of the future" status to? You can look at physical gifts, or throwing accuracy, or work ethic, or toughness. All those are important traits. But arguably the single most important trait is mental ability--which is also the most difficult to measure. WRT mental ability, I'd divide QBs into four categories: Category 1: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability both on and off the football field. Example: Peyton Manning. Category 2: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability on the football field, but not necessarily off of it. Example: Jim Kelly Category 3: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on the field, but do demonstrate it off of it. Example: Trent Edwards Category 4: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on or off the field. Example: J.P. Losman Obviously, I'd want my team's QB of the future to be as close to category 1 as possible. Manuel's off-field academic accomplishments are good enough to put him into category 3; but the fact he ran a simplified, one-read college offense keeps him out of categories 1 or 2. Just because he wasn't a category 1 or 2 college prospect doesn't guarantee he'll have severe mental limitations as a pro. But it does imply there's a much greater risk of that than would be the case with a category 1 or 2 college prospect. I'd argue that Drew Brees was in that category 1 - 2 category; and was therefore more likely to turn into a mentally accomplished QB than someone lower down on the ladder.

I just re-watched the replay. Man, that was a heartbreaking play. This time around, I paid very close attention to the ball, while ignoring everything else. I froze the video on the frame from the instant the ball was released. In that frame, the ball looked like it was about two feet in front of the 25 yard line. Then I froze the video again when the ball was caught. In that frame, it looked as though the ball was less than a foot in front of the 25 yard line. Also, your "tie goes to the runner" analogy is relevant. My sense is that the correct call was made. I hate saying that, because I still remember the sense of triumph I felt when Rob Johnson and the offense regained the lead with just 16 seconds left. I wish they'd kicked the ball out of bounds. Then the fate of the game would have been in the hands of our strongest unit (the defense), not our weakest unit (kickoff coverage team).

Just to add to this discussion, which newspaper headline seems more likely? a) "Sabres outlast Stars in Game 7 of Stanley Cup Finals" b) "Rob Johnson outduels Kurt Warner in Bills Super Bowl Upset"

You were right about Wanny. From one of your posts written in May of 2012. > On paper it looks good. However we have no evidence Wanny is a competent DC. Given your track record, I'm concerned you may also be right about Pettine.

Excellent point, and that's one of the reasons I voted for No Goal. Another reason is that there was absolutely, positively, no doubt whatsoever, that Dallas's "goal" shouldn't have counted. A textbook example of an erroneous officiating call. As for the Music City Miracle: I've watched the replay of that several times, and . . . it's close. It's about as close an officiating call as I've ever seen anyone have to make. Better to correct the glaring injustice first (No Goal), before correcting something which could have been called either way (Music City Miracle).

Dude. I'll say it again: dude. I'll tell it to you straight. I'm more pessimistic than most people around here. Read my posts about Fitz, Kolb, and Manuel if you don't believe me. I've predicted a 6-10 record for the Bills this season, and I'm fairly sure I predicted a similar record for last season too. But your pessimism level goes way beyond mine. The Jets' defensive scheme and coaching looked very solid to me. Certainly much better than the coaching we're used to seeing from Edwards or Wannestedt. And yet you're already convinced Pettine will be a failure, because you see no other possible outcomes. Are there risks associated with him? Absolutely. It's possible Pettine will fail just as badly on his own as Wannestedt failed after he was no longer with Jimmy Johnson. On the other hand, it's also possible he'll succeed just as brilliantly as Bill Belichick did after he was no longer under the shadow of Bill Parcells. Most likely, he will fall somewhere between those two extremes. Given who the Jets' head coach was, a certain amount of dissension was almost inevitable no matter what the defensive coordinator did. As for the fact the Jets let him walk: there was personal friction and strong differences of opinion between Pettine and Rex; and I'm quite sure those differences biased Rex's thinking. A biased person is not always wrong; and I'm not dismissing the possibility Rex was right. But that's merely a possibility--not something any of us can know with certainty.

Around the time Spiller was drafted, I wrote something along the following lines. "The Bills should have a bias against taking RBs. It's a less valuable position than many others. RBs tend to have shorter careers. And they have plenty of talent at RB already. In order to be considered successful, Spiller doesn't just need to be as good as whichever other player the Bills would have taken. He needs to be considerably better." I don't know which player the Bills would have selected, had Spiller not been there. But if you look at the ten players drafted after Spiller, none have shown anything near what Spiller has shown, except for JPP. JPP was a one year wonder in college: there just wasn't enough data to justify taking him early in the first round. Buddy Nix had also indicated a strong preference for using first round picks on players who'd produced multiple seasons of high level college play. The next one year wonder + great combine player could be the next JPP--or the next Aaron Maybin. With the exception of JPP, Spiller has greatly outperformed the other players who went in that part of the draft. As far as I'm concerned, Spiller has justified his draft selection; despite my anti-RB bias.

If you're a defensive coordinator underneath a defensive head coach, other teams don't necessarily know how much of the defense's success or failure was your doing, and how much was due to the head coach. Going from a situation like that into a situation in which you're a defensive coordinator under an offensively minded head coach represents a de facto promotion; even if it's a lateral move on paper. This kind of promotion is exactly what the Bills gave Pettine. If he does well with this promotion, then odds are that several years down the line he'll start getting interviews for his next promotion (to a head coaching position).

> What you haven't acknowledged so far is that both Kaepernick and RGIII demonstrated last year that > they on the strength of their perfomrances elevated their respective teams to new heights. If I haven't acknowledged that before, then I'll do so now. Consider the above statement acknowledged. > Drew Brees is one of my favorite qbs. He is going to be inducted in the > HOF some day. Your citing of Drew Brees's developoment over time reinforces my > point that it takes time for qbs to develop. There are qbs such as Losman and RJ > Johnson who never outgrow their limitations. Just because they can't break out > of their aggravating mental blockages that doesn't mean that other qbs can't > make the leap towards being an accomplished qb. Let's say you have a baby tortoise and a baby parrot. At first, neither animal shows any real speech ability. Learning how to talk takes time. So you give each animal several years of training; at the end of which the parrot knows how to talk, and the tortoise does not. The tortoise was never going to learn how to talk, because its mental ceiling was lower than the parrot's. So how do you know if the quarterback you've drafted is a tortoise like Losman or a parrot like Brees? If a draft prospect is described as "raw," or "a project," odds are he's a tortoise. But if, as a draft prospect, he's described as "polished," "NFL-ready," and so forth, there's a pretty good chance he's a parrot. If at the college level a QB shows he's good at handling the mental aspects of the game, then I'm willing to give him time to grow into the demands of the NFL. But if a college QB didn't do much to show high bandwidth, then I don't want my team drafting him. I certainly don't want them eschewing other potential QB prospects to give him more time to develop. In 2004, TD chose not to trade up for Roethlisberger, in part because he felt Houston's asking price was too high, and because he was confident Losman could be the answer. Later in the 2004 draft, he passed up the opportunity to draft Matt Schaub--now a franchise QB--because he felt the answer to the QB position was already on the roster in the form of Losman. In 2005, TD didn't draft Aaron Rodgers late in the first round, partly because he felt he was all set with Losman, and partly because his first round pick of 2005 had been used to acquire Losman. When a team puts its faith in a quarterback who didn't demonstrate mental acuity in college football, it can pay a very high price.

> As JohnC points out, another question is whether the QBs in question (basically we're > talking about Cam Newton, RGIII, and Kaepernick and by suggestion, EJ) will be able to > continue to develop the mental aspect to compensate for the inevitable decline in their physical skills. Even if their level of physical skills were to stay exactly the same over the next ten years, it's not a given that their level of performance would stay the same. Kordell Stewart was a physically gifted quarterback who had one good season before defenses caught up to him. The same thing may or may not happen to the three guys you mentioned, but it's worth watching. As an aside, I have a high respect for your opinion. The fact you are optimistic about Manuel makes me feel better about him than I otherwise would.