Orton's Arm

I burst out laughing when I read your response. The thought of you sitting at your computer, frustrated, amuses me.

> I strenuously disagree with you on your stereotyping of these two physically talented qbs. Both players > are exceptionally smart people who are being tutored by a couple of the top tier HCs. Earlier, you mentioned Kaepernick and RGIII as examples of physically gifted QBs who play in simplified offenses. Maybe they can learn to play in more complex offenses: to quickly and accurately handle large amounts of information the way Aaron Rodgers does. I'm not discounting that possibility. On the other hand, a player should never be given credit for accomplishing or proving something, until he's actually accomplished or proved it. Thus far Kaepernick and RGIII have not yet proved they can process information at or near the Aaron Rodgers level. > As I noted in the prior posting you are making a mistake in pigeonholing players without the recognition that players evolve and get better. A player like Drew Brees had a high mental ceiling; but that was not necessarily obvious based on the early portion of his career. He evolved toward his high mental ceiling, but it took time. Losman had a much lower mental ceiling; and required several years to reach that low ceiling. In college, Drew Brees had displayed more evidence of being an accomplished pocket passer, with a high mental ceiling, than had Losman. > Kaepernick and RGIII are not in the same category of Johnson/Losman/Edwards. In the early stages > of their careers they have demonstrated a "feel" for the game that the stubborn qbs you referred to never had. I tend to agree with this. But it's also important to remember that with Johnson/Losman/Edwards, we're dealing with 20/20 hindsight. A number of people on this board would have said positive things about Losman's feel for the game after the 2006 season; or Edwards' feel for the game after the 2008 season.

Hot chicks, you say? How about some partially naked hot chicks?

I agree that athletic ability and mental acuity are not mutually exclusive. Steve Young had great mobility, but he also had the accuracy and mental tools needed to be a great pocket passer. Even if injuries had robbed Young of his great mobility, his pocket passing along was good enough to make him one of the best QBs ever to have played. But there is another type of QB: a guy who uses great athleticism to mask his below-average information processing ability. Kaepernick and RGIII--the two guys you mentioned--are in that category. > But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. That depends on the weakness. No amount of hard work and good coaching was going to give Rob Johnson good pocket awareness; or Losman good awareness, or make Trent Edwards aware of opportunities more than five yards away from the line of scrimmage. All three of those quarterbacks failed due to their mental shortcomings--shortcomings which could not be erased by any amount of hard work or coaching. It's possible that players like Kaepernick, RGIII, and Manuel have higher mental ceilings than Johnson, Losman, and Edwards. It's also possible that offensive coordinators can do a better job of masking Kaepernick's/RGIII's/Manuel's mental weaknesses than they did at masking those of Johnson/Losman/Edwards. > You interestingly cited O'Donnell in your comparison to Stewart. O'Donnell was a heady qb with physical limitations. He is an earlier version of Fitz. I agree that there are strong similarities between O'Donnell and Fitz. But Joe Montana had physical limitations also: he lasted until the third round because he lacked a big time arm. The main difference between Joe Montana on the one hand and O'Donnell and Fitzpatrick on the other was that Montana didn't have an Irish last name. But the second-most important difference was that Montana was a ridiculously accurate passer who could hit receivers in perfect stride; and whose threw with perfect touch. The limitations of an O'Donnell or a Fitzpatrick don't signal the end of the pocket passer era. A team with a Fitzpatrick as its starter can obtain a huge QB upgrade by obtaining an Aaron Rodgers or a Peyton Manning.

> Without a doubt being able to read defenses is critical. But with more athletic qbs such as Kaepernick, > Cam Newton and RGIII the read option has come into play and allowsqbs with another set of traits to be successful. If I understand you correctly, you're saying that, in the right system, a sufficiently athletic QB can use his athleticism to compensate for mental limitations. This right system would ask the QB to do a lot of things that only an athletic quarterback could do--thus playing to his strengths. At the same time, the person designing the system needs to avoid asking the QB to do some of the things expected from traditional pocket passers; because those things are beyond the QB's mental limits. The above-described experiment has periodically been tried in the past. I remember the hype surrounding Kordell Stewart. Neil O'Donnell was described as an old guard QB: the kind of immobile pocket passer that highly athletic, Kordell Stewart-style QBs would soon replace. Kordell quickly flamed out; whereas Tom Brady (as immobile as they come) led his team to three Super Bowl wins. This time around, highly athletic, mobile QBs--guys who don't necessarily have Aaron Rodgers-level information processing ability--are experiencing considerable success early in their careers. Is that success an anomaly, much like the one good season Kordell Stewart had, or Losman's one good season? Or has something changed--something which would allow today's athletic, mentally limited QBs to achieve more long-term success than that category of QBs had in the past? For the sake of argument, let's say something has changed. Suppose for example offensive coordinators have gotten better at designing offenses well-suited to this style of quarterback. The competition between offensive and defensive coordinators is permanent. If offensive coordinators have unleashed a new style of offense uniquely suited to maximizing athletic QBs' strengths, how long will it be before defensive coordinators unveil new defenses well-suited to exposing their mental weaknesses?

I'm right there with you. 6 - 7 wins seems like about the right number to me. I voted for 6 wins, because that seemed slightly more likely than seven. My logic was this: QB: I see Kolb as a slight downgrade from Fitz. I do not believe Manuel should or will play as a rookie. OL: Last year's OL was devastated by injuries. If this year's OL can stay healthy, that will allow this year's OL to outproduce last year's. On the other hand, the loss of Levitre hurts. WR: Receivers typically don't produce much as rookies; and the list of accomplished veteran WRs starts and ends with Stevie Johnson. I don't expect huge improvement in this area--at least not in 2013. TE: I expect us to remain roughly unchanged. Offensive coaching: Gailey's offensive philosophy seemed to mesh well with Fitz; allowing him to overachieve. I don't think we're likely to see that same kind of synergy again this season. DL: I expect Dareus to improve. Kyle Williams may also improve, now that he's had bone spurs removed. LBs: Even though I'm not necessarily expecting great things from this year's LB corps, it almost has to be an improvement over last year's. DBs: Last year's defensive secondary was a serious problem. I expect this year's defensive secondary to perform at about the same level. The one exception is Gilmore; who is likely to learn from his rookie mistakes. Defensive coaching: anything would be better than the train wreck we witnessed last season. I expect us to see a huge upgrade, especially over the long run. But I don't expect much for the first 5 - 8 games of the season, because players will still be getting used to the new defense. Overall, I expect the offense to take a step backwards from what we had last year; mostly due to the loss of the Gailey/Fitz synergy; but also due to players getting used to the new offense. I expect the defense to take a step forward. I anticipate these things to balance out; giving us about the same record we had last year.

> Natural monopolies do occur. The problem is not that they charge higher, or obtain Economic Rent. Monopolies do charge higher prices than would have occurred in a competitive market. This results in a lower quantity supplied; and therefore in a deadweight loss. It also results in a transfer of wealth to the monopolists--a much greater wealth transfer than would have occurred in competitive conditions. Depending on perspective, some might see all this as a problem; others might not. I personally don't like it at all, but I respect your right to disagree with me. > Rather, w/r/t government involvement, the problem is when they abuse that market power. Anything they do to reduce competition--to make conditions more monopolistic than otherwise would have been the case--constitutes an abuse of market power. The sole purpose of the blackout rule is to prevent competition between one facet of the NFL (televised games) and another facet (stadium attendance). No monopoly should be permitted to engage in competition-reducing behavior such as this. > But to me, the NFL is a luxury item, not a necessity like electricity, clean water, etc. So the less > necessary is the product, the less the govt. should throw its weight into the situation. I'll go along with that. At the same time, anti-competitive business practices should be illegal for any monopoly, no matter how unnecessary its product.

> So what would you have done? Prior to the draft, I had written something along the following lines, "The Bills should have Barkley throw the ball around, to see if he has the minimum level of arm strength you'd expect from a starting quarterback. If he has that much arm strength, they should take him 8th overall." My guess is that he was unable to provide satisfactory evidence of adequate arm strength; hence falling to the fourth round. If the Bills' pre-draft evaluation of Barkley consisted of, "likely to fail due to lack of arm strength," then it would have been foolish to take him in the first round. But if he's still there in the third round--which he was--then I would have taken him then. In addition to drafting Barkley in the third round of this year's draft, I would have used a first round pick on a QB in next year's draft. Going into the 2013 draft, there were a number of people on these very boards who wrote, "there are no quarterbacks in this year's draft. Wait until next year, and take a first round QB then." > Because of the rookie compensation structure taking a QB in the first round does not hand cuff a team for five years like it use too. That's true. But I would have been perfectly happy to use a first round pick on a QB even under the old rookie compensation system. When it comes to the QB, getting the right guy dwarfs the importance of everything else. (Everything else being draft picks used, salary cap space consumed, etc.) But if you draft the wrong QB, then your team will spend the next several years eschewing opportunities to draft the right one. For example; the Bills drafted Losman in 2004. In 2005, the Packers used a late first round pick on Aaron Rodgers. Had we not traded our own first round pick of 2005 away as part of the Losman deal, we would have had both the ability to take Rodgers, and a perceived need at the QB position.

I don't see how the Bills can afford to pay both Byrd and Brad Smith. Okay, granted, Brad Smith isn't much of a WR. Nor does he do anything in the return game that others on the roster can't replace. Nor is he much of a quarterback. Nor would it make sense to give him a lot of carries as a running back. But even though all of that is true, his mere presence on the roster makes the coaching staff feel like they have more opportunities to be creative. With a player as versatile as this, surely there must be something innovative we can do with him! the coaches think to themselves. It's a nice thought. But when the time comes to line someone up at quarterback, the coaching staff realizes they have better options than Brad Smith. Same with WR, RB, etc. Brad Smith doesn't get a lot of playing time, because he's never going to be the best option at any position in particular. But this is a solvable problem. In quantum physics, an electron doesn't necessarily have to commit itself to one particular physical location; unless its location is being measured. The rest of the time, its physical location can be described as a probability field: with, say, a 10% chance of its being in one part of the field, a 20% chance of being in another, etc. Clearly, the Bills need to apply this same concept to Brad Smith. At the beginning of each play, the defense will see there's a 20% chance he just lined up at quarterback, a 15% chance he lined up at RB, a 35% chance he lined up at WR, and a 30% chance he lined up somewhere else. This will be very confusing to them; making Smith much more effective than he could have been, had he lined up in any one position in particular. Once the Bills' coaching staff figures out how to do this, Smith will undoubtedly start justifying his very high salary. If the Bills need to lose Byrd in order to make all this happen, then so be it.

I used to think more highly of Cutler's ceiling than is now the case. A few weeks ago, I read an article which went into detail about his limitations. It broke down a play, showed what a hypothetical perfect quarterback would have done, and contrasted that to what Cutler actually did. The overly slow, flawed decision-making Cutler evinced on that play was not a one-time thing, but part of a pattern. Cutler is a more accurate, more physically gifted quarterback than Fitz; and overall has played at a somewhat higher level. But unless he significantly increases the speed and quality of his decision-making, there will continue to be a substantial difference between his play and the top-5 quarterbacks' play.

> Specifically the NY/A category (Net Yards per Attempt) defined as ((Passing yards - sack yards)/ (pass attempts + sacks)) I admit that taking sacks into account made a bigger difference in the stats than I'd realized. I'll also grant that Fitz makes his offensive line look better than it really is; and Cutler makes it look worse. On the other hand, Cutler has had a significantly worse OL in Chicago than Fitz had in Buffalo. Making it look as though Cutler was solely responsible for the difference in sacks seems like a case of letting the Chicago OL off the hook. For the sake of argument, let's say that all those extra sacks Cutler took were half his own fault, and half the fault of his offensive line. During his time in Buffalo, Fitz achieved a YPA of 6.7; as opposed to 7.1 for Cutler in Chicago. In Buffalo, Fitz achieved a 6.02 net yards per pass attempt (the stat you used), versus 6.02 for Cutler in Chicago. If you average YPA with net yards per pass attempt, you get 6.56 for Cutler in Chicago, and 6.36 for Fitzpatrick in Buffalo. In addition, Fitz had a 3.7 INT percentage in Buffalo; whereas Cutler had a 3.6 INT percentage in Chicago. Overall, Cutler has better numbers than Fitz, but it's not a huge difference.

> One read yes but simplified? I live in FL and know some FSU fans, they can't even agree on whether that offense is simple or overly complicated. Contradictory claims are a pain: one usually doesn't know what to believe. I recall having seen one article in which the FSU coach described the offense as simplified; but went on to say that he felt Manuel could have run a more complex offense. I personally put more faith in what players actually did in college, than in what their coaches claim they could have done. > Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf is a bad comparison. Ryan Leaf was and still is an immature punk, EJ appears to be anything but. I certainly have seen nothing to suggest Manuel is an immature punk. Ryan Leaf was an example of a guy who'd been described as "raw," "unpolished," "a project" and "not NFL-ready." Losman is another example of a guy who was considered raw, unpolished, a project, etc. And Losman didn't have Leaf's attitude problems. Losman seemed to have a pretty good work ethic and willingness to be a team player. But he failed anyway due to his mental limitations. Most players described as "raw" or "not NFL-ready" will fail for that same reason. Which brings me to a quote from a pro-Manuel article. "Literally nowhere on the Internet can I find someone with a respected football opinion to tell me [Manuel is] ready to be a starter in the NFL." Manuel is much more likely to fail than he is to succeed.

> But, if consumers keep buying, that means we like it (or dont hate it) so THAT is the free market doing its work. Yes and no. There is just one credible professional football league--the NFL--which means the NFL has a lot of market power. On the other hand, consumers are divided: we "negotiate" with the NFL as individuals; not as a collective whole. In an ideal free market, there should be both a large numbers of producers and a large number of consumers. For example, a large number of wheat farmers each selling a commodity product (grade A wheat), to a large number of buyers. Arguably professional football is a natural monopoly, much like cable television or land line phone service. Any given monopoly will attempt to charge higher prices than would have obtained in an ideal free market. I don't see a logical way to break up the NFL into several different competing football leagues. But if the NFL isn't going to be broken up, it will have too much power in its dealings with consumers. Government involvement can legitimately be used to reduce some of that power. Taking away the blackout rule is an obvious place to start; because the sole purpose of that rule is anti-competitive. By offering games on both T.V. and in stadiums, the NFL is competing against itself. The NFL doesn't want that competition to result in lower prices for stadium seats. Which is why it uses the blackout rule to eliminate this competition in markets with the most downward price pressure on tickets. (That is, those markets which have the hardest time selling out.) Any time someone becomes the owner of a monopoly, there's an opportunity to collect an "economic rent." Economic rent means monies collected over and above whatever would have been the case, had there been perfect competition. NFL owners and players are collecting massive economic rents. If there were, say, 100 different competing football leagues, each of which had a team in Buffalo, and each about the same size/credibility level, there's no way any one of those leagues could get away with the high ticket prices, insanely high concessions prices, very long commercial breaks, or other forms of gouging we're used to seeing. Each league would act like the NFL did back in the early '60s, back before it had obtained the power it had today. We as consumers do not owe NFL owners or players massive economic rents.

Back when the NFL first began televising its games, there was concern among owners that people would stop going to games; and just watch them on t.v. instead. That was back in the days when ticket prices were family friendly; and when players didn't earn that much more than the rest of us. The blackout rule was put in place to reassure owners nervous about the whole television experiment. Today, television is no longer an experiment. NFL teams derive a very large portion of their revenue from television contracts. The NFL could operate itself as a very profitable league with television revenue alone. (Though player salaries would have to be adjusted to reflect the loss of all other revenue sources.) For the most part, ticket prices have ceased to be family-friendly; and concession prices have become a form of rape. If we as consumers become less likely to attend games in-person, that behavior change would no longer represent a threat to the NFL's business model. The only real threat is to the owners' + players' ability to gouge us consumers of as much money as possible. (I'm lumping players in here because they reap a large share of the rewards of the gouging process.) That gouging benefits no one at all--except the owners and players. Therefore, the blackout rule itself is harmful to everyone, with the possible exception of those doing the gouging. Normally, a privately owned business should be able to do as it likes. But there are two reasons why the NFL is different from an ordinary business. - Taxpayer subsidies - The monopoly status of the NFL If we as taxpayers are helping to subsidize millionaire players and billionaire owners, then we also have the right to dictate terms and conditions. "If you don't like our terms and conditions," we can tell them, "then we'll pass a law to make it illegal for any state or local government to subsidize an NFL team in any way." The monopoly status of the NFL is also very relevant here. The intent of the blackout rule is to reduce competition. Specifically, the NFL is attempting to take away alternatives to watching the games in-person. The objective of reducing competition is to be able to sell out stadiums, without having to reduce ticket or concession prices. Normally monopolies can (and should) be regulated, specifically to prevent them from engaging in anti-competitive business practices. This particular anti-competitive business practice harms consumers; both by reducing choice, and by allowing the NFL to further inflate its prices.

> Your grass cutting story is full of the scare tactics used by the rich to discourage the common > taxpayers from changing the status quo that helps the rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. My intention is not to use scare tactics. Nor would I approve of a situation in which the rich got richer at the expense of everyone else. On the contrary, the gap between rich and poor is too large already; and I would like to see it shrink. One way the rich keep wages down is through immigration. If there are 100 Americans competing for 110 jobs, then that puts the middle class and the working class in a position of negotiating strength. But if you bring in 50 immigrants to join the competition, then suddenly it's the employers who are in the position of power. Employers can and will use that power to treat their workers less well, to drive down wages, and to generally make conditions better for themselves and worse for those working for them. Obviously, things are much better when there are more jobs than there are workers to fill them. When it's like that, employers will raise wages, because they're bidding against each other to obtain part of the scarce labor supply. Reducing large corporations' control over immigration policy would be one way to make it so there were more jobs than workers. Another way would be to make life easier on entrepreneurs: the true job creators. Big business does not always like things to be easy on entrepreneurs. Entrepreneurs can destabilize large, established businesses. Big businesses do not necessarily want their existing, profitable business lines to be shaken up by entrepreneurs. Onerous paperwork requirements and complex regulations harm entrepreneurs much more than they harm big businesses. If you could make regulations simple, then big and small businesses could compete on a level playing field. Leveling the playing field would allow entrepreneurs to create more jobs.

> I am using an iPad, same operating system as a Mac. If you want to paste text while getting rid of the formatting, hold down command + option + shift + v. It's a lot of keys to press at once, but very useful! > You missed the point, John C said Kolb knew his place as maybe a temporary starter and > eventual back up. I said based on that quote he did not know. Fair enough. My guess is that Kolb has been told about his role. But that he intends to prove to the coaching staff that he's a better short-term option and a better long-term option than Manuel. > What exactly about Manuel's NFL career has led you to conclude he can't play? I've addressed this subject in this post, and in this post.

I take it you haven't seen the following draft-day transcript. Reporter: so tell me your thoughts and feelings about Cordy Glenn. Eagles GM: We're very excited about Cordy, and thrilled he fell to us in the second round. Reporter: but he didn't actually fall to you guys. He was taken by the Buffalo Bills. Eagles GM: With Cordy, we went through a two-part process. The first part was to decide if we felt comfortable with him as our long-term left tackle. The answer there was yes. The second question was whether we needed him immediately. We felt Cordy was a little raw; and there are already guys on our team who can hold the LT position down for the next few years. Reporter: All that is great, but Glenn isn't actually an Eagle. Eagles GM: Fortunately, we didn't have to throw Cordy to the wolves right away. He can spend the next few years in Buffalo before graduating to the Eagles. Reporter: but what guarantee do you have that he'll become an Eagle? What if he spends the rest of his career in Buffalo? Eagles GM: After he was picked, I called Cordy to congratulate him. "Cordy," I said, "I want to welcome you to the Eagles franchise. I trust you'll make us proud. Keep your chin up, and don't let yourself get discouraged about the fact you'll spend the first few years of your Eagles career in a Bills' uniform." Reporter: but aren't you worried about the possibility he might not join the Eagles? Eagles GM: I think Cordy has a great combination of work ethic, height, arm length, arm strength, toughness, and athleticism. I don't have any Cordy-related worries. I'm confident he'll do a great job of protecting the Eagles' blind side for many years to come.

********* “I don’t buy what’s being sold I guess,” said Kolb. “I just listen to what they tell me to do and roll on with it. I have a lot of confidence in my abilities and this offense and hopefully what I can do in it.” ********* Copy and paste worked for me. Maybe that's because I'm on a Mac. I have no problem with that quote. If Kolb's goal is to prove to the coaching staff that he's the long-term answer at starting quarterback, then odds are he'll push himself harder than a guy content to be a backup. On the other hand, I don't want Kolb treating Manuel the way Flutie treated Rob Johnson. But nothing in Kolb's quote leads me to believe that will be an issue. All this being said, I don't think that either Kolb or Manuel is the long-term answer at quarterback.

Yeah, my bad. I think I got him confused with Demetress Bell. After a while, it's hard to keep track of which Bills' LTs have been acquired by the Eagles (Peters), which have been acquired and released (Bell), and which have not yet been acquired (Glenn).

I don't know why I thought the Eagles had released Peters, but obviously I was wrong. Thanks for catching the error.

Good post. I liked the video, and the measurement tool they used. It's good to know that when a target turns color (as in the test), Manuel can quickly recognize and react to that. But the ability to react quickly to one simple data point is not the same as the ability to quickly synthesize large amounts of complex data. I'm not dismissing the YouTube video you showed--it makes me more confident about Manuel's mental ability than I otherwise would have been. But I still feel there are more questions than answers. I also read the article to which you'd linked. The author is from Medina, and covers the Bills for the Bleacher Report. Prior to the draft, he believed Manuel was the fifth-best quarterback in that draft. He now believes Manuel is the best QB. One could argue that his first opinion was the more valid, because it wasn't subject to homer bias. Or one could argue that his new opinion is better, because he's had the chance to do more research. I feel reasonably comfortable with Manuel's accuracy, so the portion of his article which praised that part of his game seemed convincing and easy to believe. But his attempt to sell me on Manuel's decision making was less effective. In the second sentence of the article, he wrote, "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." Back in 1998, Peyton Manning was described as "polished" and "NFL-ready." Ryan Leaf was described as "raw," more of "a project," but with higher "upside" due to his physical gifts. "Not NFL ready" can sometimes mean "not NFL ready right this instant." But more often, it means "is not now, and will never be NFL ready." Against the concerns raised by that sentence, the reassurances given later in the article seem flimsy and weak.

Jabari Greer was a painful loss--he's been a starter for New Orleans the last four years. The Bills sure could have used another CB this past season. The Bills traded Jason Peters for a first round pick from the Eagles. The Eagles released Peters just a few seasons after that trade. I do not want a do-over on that one! London Fletcher and Pat Williams are guys who maintained high levels of play later into their careers than you'd expect. Sure, a do-over would be nice in either or both those cases; but that's 20-20 hindsight. Based on the data available at the time, their longevity would have been difficult to predict. I do not object to the Bills' letting Whitner go. Like Nate Clements before him, the 49ers are overpaying Whitner for his production. As mrags hinted at, the most painful player loss in recent memory was Antoine Winfield. The Bills lost the majority of Winfield's career to the Vikings, with no draft pick compensation at all. Losing a Pro Bowl player at a premium position, with no compensation, after just 1/3 of his career, is about as bad as it gets.

If you were to take a couple dozen college QBs chosen at random, I do not think the majority would possess the ability to process large amounts of information quickly that a starting NFL QB should have. You want a guy who can make at least three reads and make them quickly, while at the same time sensing the pass rush and adjusting his own position to buy himself more time. While doing those things, he also has to read the defense; making any needed modifications to his pre-snap read. He also has to focus on taking the snap, dropping back, keeping his footwork good, and perhaps looking off defenders before throwing the pass. That's a lot to do in 3 - 5 seconds. The average person's brain cannot handle that much information that quickly. Take a guy like Trent Edwards. He's a smart guy. Went to Stanford--and Stanford doesn't lower its admissions standards for student athletes. He has all the physical tools needed to be a successful starter. He's more accurate than Fitz; which is one of the reasons why Edwards won off-season QB competitions against Fitz. You'd think that with the Stanford pedigree and the Bill Walsh recommendation, that Edwards would have the mental bandwidth necessary to succeed. But no. The 3 - 5 seconds he had between taking the snap and making the throw was not enough time for him to adequately process all the information around him. Because of that lack of mental bandwidth, he was unable to see or take advantage of opportunities for intermediate or deep passes. He tried to compensate for his deficiency in on-field information processing ability by focusing on dump-offs to his safety valve. Is there evidence that Manuel will succeed where Losman and Edwards failed? From what I have read, Manuel ran a simplified, one read college offense. Whenever he focused on one mental aspect of the game, other aspects seemed to suffer. Thus far, I have not seen evidence that Manuel has information processing ability above the usual, normal level for a college QB. In the absence of such evidence, the most likely outcome is for Manuel to fail in the mental aspects of the game; exactly as most college QBs would fail.

> And what if that business owner cannot run the business with 2 employees? In that case, the business owner would have several choices: 1) Shrink the size of the business, while focusing on the most profitable customers. 2) Keep the business the same size, and hire four people at $14 an hour minimum wage 3) Close the business The business owner will presumably choose whichever of the above options is the most profitable. The most profitable option for one business may not be the best for another. > Do you really think a business owner is running the business with more people than he or she needs because the minimum wage is low? Let's say it's a lawn mowing business; and you're charging people $15 per lawn mowed. With the increase in minimum wage, you need to raise your price to $25 per mowing. A lot of people and businesses will respond to that price increase by getting their lawns mowed less often. With fewer lawn mowings per week, you as the business owner will need fewer employees. So you lay someone off. That's just one example. I'm sure the people reading this could come up with plenty more examples in which lower wages-->lower prices for customers-->more sales-->more employees needed. > It's a smoke sceen throw out there by rich business people to keep the minimum wage down. The problem is not that the minimum wage is low. The problem is that the natural market equilibrium for unskilled labor is a low wage rate. If an unregulated free market "wants" to pay workers low wages, then the only way you can increase wages is via price controls (such as a high minimum wage). The problem with such price controls is that they create unemployment. So what do you need to do to make the market "want" to pay unskilled workers decent-to-good wages? Basically, you have to reduce the supply of unskilled labor (immigration reform), and increase demand (reducing paperwork burdens to make businesses more productive). > No one should be working full time in a job and still be under the poverty level in a country as rich as this one. Agreed. But the way to achieve that is by intelligently using free market mechanisms. Not by increasing government involvement with/tampering of the free market. The latter generally has unintended, very negative side-effects. > Maybe the business man or woman will have to raise his or her prices but then the consumer can decide whether to buy it or not. Or they can buy from China instead.

> Never forget - Trent Edwards was a Pre-Season Hall of Famer. Good point. The single most difficult aspect of the QB position is the mental side of the game. The preseason is greatly simplified; which means it's an opportunity for a Trent Edwards or a J.P. Losman to shine. QBs like that have deep flaws in the mental side of their game/information processing bandwidth; but those flaws will not be exposed until the regular season. E.J. Manuel has the physical traits and throwing accuracy necessary to shine in the preseason. I personally feel he lacks the mental bandwidth necessary for sustained success in the regular season. But I could be wrong about that. This issue will not be resolved with words; but with Manuel's play on the field. I've gone on record with my opinion; but I don't necessarily seek to debate those who see things differently.