OCinBuffalo

Oh please. You know me, and I know you. And, if there's a better O line expert here....do tell. Obviously signed up. FAIL! (Yes, this is why I started the thread. But this thread is about analyzing the existing O Lineman on this team, not thanking me for starting threads. I am an = opportunity grader, thus, you FAIL!) FAIL! If you don't understand, or don't want to talk O line...seek life elsewhere! FAIL! Same as above. Signed up....but only because you reminded the rest to assess the backups. (Or, perhaps because you are the only one who actually knows the names of the backups? ) However, more content is the only way you stay signed up. FAIL! Even though you have an interesting stat....it speaks to the future, rather than dealing with the existing O line. Please understand...I hate to fail you, especially since you are refuting the "always draft O line" guys by saying "it's hard to find an O line that doesn't feature low-mid draft picks" :lol: But, you still fail. Existing line analysis only. Signed up Signed up. Keep in mind, any of those who have failed may try out again. The rules are simple: analyze the existing O line, to include any or all of the players that play O line for the Bills.

I don't feel better to pick on anybody, because I don't pick on anybody. I merely, obectively, pointed out when the trade happened, that it had maybe a 5% chance of being worthwhile. This is due to the draft value lost = the 5 year contracted first round pick who plays over his paychek for that entire time...and how many of them, for RG3. RG3 would have to be worth 4 of them. Thus, 5% chance. Simple. Period. Then, I came back here and said: "I told you so". How about this? I feel better when I expose, yet again, another Big Market marketing scam...and I am proven right. You are confused. We've been getting picked on for years...by guys like Dan Snyder, look at all the NFL rulings that have come down that are against the Bills. Who was most against us playing games in Toronto? Snyder and Jerry Jones. Look how the media has treated us. Look how the media treats the big market QBs...look how they treat EJ. But whatever, a new choice confronts you = If Dallas trades the house in order to move up and take Manziel(or insert hyped QB here), you can: 1. jump on the ESPN Big Market band wagon, buy all the hype at 20% over retail, eat all their crap, and wash it down with their kool aid. 2. recognize that trade as pure idiocy....especially on a team that started 33 different players in the front 7 on D this year, and is perhaps the worst D in the league. Which....is exactly where the Redskins were when they made the RG3 trade. So, what's it gonna be?

Well then. They are signed up. Too bad if they don't like it. PM them, and tell them that their presence is required. Signed up. Not signed up. If you can't or won't get into the skill set of each...then this thread...is not for you. This is the: Comprehensive Bills O Line Evaluation thread. Not the: Comprehensive College O Line Prospects Evaluation thread. I appreciate the effort and enthusiasm of looking at the college guys, but, it's just not enough for this thread. Signed up...barely. Need more here. For example: why are you convinced that Urbik was hurt? Why can't Pears be a starter? Not signed up. Throwing names at us, without rationale and/or backed up by stats = FAIL. FAIL will not be tolerated. Compliance is mandatory.

We agree...sorta. When I say HSA, I mean the following: 1. HSAs are run no different than 401k, which means no 3300/year max. It means up to 20% of your income, pre-tax, can be directed there. Two changes: you can add as much after-tax money as you want to an HSA, and there's no limit at all people over the age of 55. They can put their whole paycheck in if they want. And, you can't invest HSA's in "risk" funds, and you can only have 50% of your HSA in equities or commodities. 2. HSAs are transferrable to family members(and yes, partners, or whatever the hell ends up happening with gay people), or a single designated beneficiary. This means that I can transfer $ from my account to my kid's, if they are having problems. I don't necessary like the idea of a "family" HSA, because then divorce creates havoc with it. I favor every person, especially kids, gets an HSA, and that way, each kid is protected from divorce havoc. Also, the government has an easy way to fund each kid = put $ in there, rather than putting money into Medicaid. The big point: HSA are transferrable upon death. 3. Anybody, government, companies, armed services, charities, invididual people can contribute to anyone's HSA, tax-free. You take 1-3, and now do you see why I say HSA's are the easiest way to create wealth? If a grandmother can bequeath her HSA(which she's been dumping her extra money into for the last 10 years) to her grandchildren, then all of them start out ahead, and responsibly ahead. It's no different than a savings bond...but you don't have to pay taxes on it's income. The poorest of the poor, can put $1 in their HSA, without the need to stand in line, try to buy a house, sign up for government nonsense, or any other bureacratic activity. They can just go to the bank, and put their money in. See? Literally instant wealth creation, regardless of class, and no dependence on government. I'd like to see "average" people with $300k HSAs running around(earning quaterly tax-free interest), because they are 2nd generation HSA inheritors, having to think very carefully about what they spend their money on, and demanding that their vendors(whih means you) educated them fully on why this, costs this, sure, but also, very well protected in terms of unforeseen illness. I DO NOT agree that the government should set minimum insurance requirements. I think doctors like yourself should be able to come up with your own "plans" for people, and if people want to subscribe, or not, that's on you/them. The whole thing should be what it always should be: between you and them. So, yeah, you still need insurance, but, let it only be catastrophic, and, let the bigs fight it out across state lines. Let Walmart be the TPA for catastrophic. You wanna see the ass fall out of premiums and deductibles in across-state-line catastrophic insurance? Walmart. In a few generations, the need for Medicare/Medicaid/Government involvement in health care....is obliterated. Then, we will all be happier. I don't know about healthier = did you see the Oregon Medicaid Lottery data(EDIT: if not, here: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17190)? Insurance doesn't make you healthier, personal accountability does. But, in having to deal with regulations as a part of my Acitivies of Daily Living, I assure you: we will ALL be happier.

Heh....and, as I peruse RCP? What just happens to come up? This: http://www.weeklysta...268.html?page=1 Important parts: Hmmmm. 1970s. Shocker. I tell ya. Oh wait? Here's a guy that's not only won awards in his field for being right, but, was actually invited to and to lead part of the IPCC? How did that happen? Ah.....I believe we have found the famous "consensus". Now, is there a consensus about "how much"? Nope. There can't be. Not with the models failing so badly. And, remember, it's "models" not "model". If there was truly a consensus on "how much", there would be "model", and it would be: right. Yes, let's use that: Baskin, the burden of proof now falls squarely on you. Prove that the models are right. While we are waiting for Baskin to do that, let's ask ourselves, how did we get here? Hmmm...... Seems I've been saying something quite similar(because it's F'ing obvious) for quite some time now.... Also, like I've been saying: Climate Scientists have grocery bills, and kids to feed, and clothes to buy, like everybody else. Spare me this "higher purpose" crap. This is about $, and always has been. The hilarity: when they start questioning the motives of other people, using $ as the motivator. Yet, we have had no shortage of clowns trying to dismiss the guy. Look, I think you all can see what's happening here. The simple fact is: this is 100% a political issue. There's nothing scientific going on here. What is happening? Using "science" to try to impose socialism and wealth redistrubution. Ever since the Berlin Wall came down, and the world has had it's object lesson in why the free market is only answer(just ask Bono, now, of all people), the supporters of Communism/socialism have realized they CANNOT impose their ideas via the ballot box, or the courts. Thus, they need a scare tactic. They need a deceptive contraption. They need something that they can claim affects us all, and something they can claim is above all reproach, such that anyone who "denies" it can be correctly called all sorts of names. This way, they can get their real goal, socialism, while being able to claim that all the downsides of it of necessary. This way, socialism is merely the lesser of 2 evils. Global Warming was their ticket. It was perfect. It was exactly what they needed. And, because it is so perfect, they are unwilling to let it go.

Echo chamber? Yes, when discussing the obvious, you'll often find agreement. Ok turd, here's the reality and you will deal with it: The entire AGW theory, is now being "saved" by 2 speculations. Consider that. IF the theory could stand on it's own, and was so "settled" with so much consensus, why the need for 2 speculations? Again, I ask: what would you be saying differently had 1. the data we have supported the models(what didn't happen) 2. the data we have not supported the models(what did happen) ??????? Falsifiable. That's a science term. Tell us: what falsifies the AGW theory? Meanwhile, the only thing left for turds like you to cling to is: Speculation #1: We don't understand the ocean(especially the bottom), so, it's possible that the warming is being absorbed there, and, at some point, the bottom won't be able to "hold" any more warming, and then...the warming that's been "hiding" there...will explode upon us...thereby validating the models. In this way, the models will have been right all along, it's just that they didn't account for the bottom of the ocean's amazing capacity for storing warming. Speculation #2: Pollution creates particulates in the atmosphere. Those partilculates are blocking sunlight, thus, keeping the warming down, thus the models aren't wrong, they just didn't account for the amazing capacity for particles in the atmosphere both blocking sunlight from coming in, and keeping what does get in from getting out, at the same time. Both of these speculation are retarded...to any thinking person. However, #1 is practically unprovable one way or the other. #2 is just silly. You can't say pollution is causing, and stopping, something, at the same time. But again, if there is a consensus, that's rooted in science, and not politics, what exactly is the consensus? Is the consensus that the models are right? No. Can't be. The models are wrong. The empirical data proves that. That only leaves the speculations. Is there a consensus on those? I hope not. A whole lot of scientists are going to be seriously embarrassed if they are hanging their hats on either. So, what is the "consensus" predicated upon? Finally, explain this: Go ahead. Tell me that I made this up.

So, they are essentially doing what, if I had to bet $ on this, will be the eventual outcome here: They are creating their own private Health Savings Accounts. In the end, HSAs for the small stuff, and catastrophic for the big...is the real solution here. Also, like gravity, the only variable is time: how much time it takes for us to "discover" this as a nation. The Ds who are trying to change the subject to wealth inequality? Big mistake, because the HSA is the fastest way to create wealth that there is, and, the Feds can tax and pay into one with relative ease. If you want to redistribute wealth, that's the fastest way to do it. By arguing wealth inequality, the Ds may very well end up destroying Obamacare in the process, because the Rs should, if not will, counter with HSAs.

Ok...I rarely ask for personal questions to be answered here, but, I think this is helpful for us all. Can the offensive line experts here(BillinNYC, Dibs, etc.) evaluate each guy we have, in terms of strength, quickness, speed, upper body/lower body, attitude and overall as a player at that position? Tell us who should stay/go? And, tell us if they are aware of any FA O lineman that we should be looking at? (If you need any stats stuff done, just ask me. IF you want our DBs evaluated, I'll do that in return. ) The reason I ask is: I believe we need to focus on O line in FA and the Draft....but....I don't know how much. Before we start all of that, it might be nice to have an objective look at exactly where things are. *(hehehe...I tried to put the word "e v a l" in the thread title...but, since e v a l() is a function in js, and potentially a deadly one, the boad software letter-spaced it. See? It's doing it again! )

Footwork, thankfully, is the easiest and most likely thing, that can be corrected. As we saw with Losman...there are things that are much harder...if they are correctable at all. I expect EJ(not nope, because now I've seen him) to work every day towards improvement, as soon as he is 100% back from injury. Yes, starting at the end of this month, I expect EJ to be working with either his personal coach, or Hackett, on getting better. I expect him to take few days off all off-season, and I expect him to come into training camp significantly improved. EJ can do that, if he wants to.

This is precisely the thinking that makes the Redskins the Redskins.

This....is a "Bizzaro World" draft year for me. 1. I want to get an elite WR/TE, or, (more likely) trade down. The reason? Unless we can get a Megatron-type WR/TE in RD1, at our spot, the type of players we need, in terms of position, are all typically late 1st, early 2nd round picks. Putting as many picks as we can in that range should do nicely...we don't need to be in the top 10, but, good thing we are, because somebody is going to want that extra year(5 year contracts for top 10 picks), and trade up to us to get it. 2. I want to draft O line, and I'd like to see at least 3/5 of our top picks used on them. This should be obvious. Hairston is good, but will he be back? We need G, period. We may end up cutting Urbik. What I'd like to see here is a guy that can play T, so he can push the Ts....but who can also play G. This way, if he beats out one of the Ts, good, if he's the backup, good, if he's a good guard, good. I don't see how "guard specialization" trumps, versatile O line player. Perfet scenario = we can trade down to ~15-20, and get the best G in the draft. Then with our extra 2nd, we can get a tackle, and use ours to get the best TE/WR/LB on the board. 3. I don't want to see DB until the 4th. :o Man was I wrong about Robey! ...or....Man did Robey improve his game from the preseason. In fact, I am convinced our DBs are good, and they are great with Byrd. This has become a strength on the team(amazing what happens when you finally realize you play in a passing league, with Tom Brady in your division, and act accordingly. Suddenly you don't get blown out anymore, and are in every game until the end, because you can actually cover NFL WRs. Amazing what happens to your sack totals too.... ) Thus, I'm willing to roll the dice on this, because I don't think we'll be as injured as we were this past year. It has to be better, right? All of this is due to the fact that for the first time in a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time...we don't have any REAL holes on this team. Can we get better at some spots? Of course. That's always true. This difference is: we aren't counting on every player in the draft class to be an immediate starter, now, or we are screwed We aren't counting on our 5th round pick to be an All-Pro(Kyle Williams), nor are we counting on our 7th round pick to be the #1 WR(Stevie) We have some wiggle room finally, because we have our skill positions well covered. Again, EJ is a ?. A ? is not a -. Therefore, we should not pretend that this year = last year in terms of QB. I hear the LB thing...but I don't agree at all. One thing we should take away from this Defense under Pettine? Jerry Hughes looks like an All-Pro, but Jerry Hughes was heading out of football before the trade. Not taking anything away from him, he could have chosen not to work as hard, or sulk, and not take advantage of the new opportunity here, and then he would be out of football, but he didn't. However, if you can turn Jerry Hughes around with this schema? Or better, if the same DC could make use of Aaron Maybin in this schema? Then why should we go out of our way for LB? We can find the Tweener we need to play SLB, provided he is fast and can stay with a TE.....from lots of places/draft positions.

Just stopping by this thread to say I told you(whoever) so. Once again, this trade involved....The Redskins. Drafting 2 QBS involved....the Redskins. Drafting Cousins involved.....get it? Why anyone doesn't recognize the pattern of behavior there, after 10 years of the same thing, over and over, baffles me. Perhaps the best thing to do next time? Start off by saying, to yourself, first: "It's the Redskins. Most likely whatever they do is awful, so....It's going to take a lot more than 24/7 ESPN big market, and marketing, hype to get me on board this time. I should have learned this with the Mark Sanchez campaign. That I didn't says more about the effectiveness of marketing, than it does about me. But, that's 2 strikes now. I'm not gonna get fooled again". I'm just trying to save posters from themselves. Oh...one more thing....what happened to the "Mike Shanahan is not going to let this get out of hand, and, he's going to make it work, in spite of Dan Snyder"? Never underestimate the utility of duct tape, or the propensity for Dany Snyder to screw up a football team in ways you can't even imagine.

Please don't take this the wrong way, as I've had a similar situation in my family, and it's tough..... ...but....(giggle) Hey, at least you lucked out with the one word being "grandmother", right? . Other words might have been less....sweet. In absolute seriousness, it's nice that her one word was "grandmother" given the background. That actually makes me , for real. As for my story? Cautionary tale. My poor mother was left, on her own, to make the same decision about my father's father. She decided to keep things going, because this way all my father's brothers would get a chance to fly in and say goodbye. Seems reasonable, compassionate, etc., right? Wrong. What she had no way of knowing: my grandfather's specific condition + laws of NYS + the 3 Doctors approach to "care" = my grandfather was turned into a sort of science experiment for the next 30 days, and the only person who could have legally made the decision to end it, my grandmother, was diagnosed with dimensia 3 months prior...no joy there. It was the worst possible thing that could have happened.. Thus, my mom was left holding the bag, and was literally asked "how could you have been so stupid/cruel". Which....is F'ed up every way there is, because she was put on the spot and asked to make a call with 0 notice and 0 time to consider....all because she voluteered to be there for a few hours. (No good deed...) I took care of the quesitioner by asking them the same question, about their question. But, not too harshly. People are extremely dumb in grief. I'd rather have grief-stupified family member who cared, than one who doesn't. But, it doesn't make the dumb any easier to deal with. I think that's largely what's in play in the story above: people being extremely dumb in grief. Moral of the story: living will, kept up to date, for everybody, because you literally never know. Also, educate yourself about end-of-life, and make as many not-in-grief decisions as you can, ahead of time. There are plenty of good books and resources onlne. It's Boy Scouts: Be Prepared. Intentional, ongoing, consistent, and productive communication is a huge help too. With my grandfather, we failed to do all of that. It wasn't for a lack of trying from some in the group. It was due to a lack of responsiveness, and perhaps...maturity, from others.

Hehehe....My brother literally moved to Florida 2 weeks ago. Something has to really change for me to last here another 6 months. Not sure where I would go, but, I'm getting that "time to move on" feeling a lot more than I usually do. I love going to games, but, I hate being one of the very few around here that cleary sees that Emporer Byron Brown walks around in his underwear every day. And, knowing that most likely he didn't even pay for the underwear, he got it donated to one of his "non-profits", doesn't make me feel like being very "tolerant" of the unmitigated moron point of view. Example: Yet again I heard the "The first thing we need to do in Buffalo is enact a living wage law, that will help business because they will be able to recruit people better, and everyone will have more $ to spend in the city" idiocy.... This seems to be the latest "wisdom" from Elmwood Village, that ends up in Allentown, that some clown ends up parroting to me. It's like living in, the living embodiment of, Reagan's "It's not that our liberal friends are ignorant, it's just that they know so many things that aren't so".

No look post. Would that weapon be... Twitter? Miley Cyrus's foam finger? MSNBC? Joe Biden talking about all things Delaware? The never-ending "We should trade down because...Belechick" threads/posts that are about to begin? Ann Coulter? Micheal Moore? Traps? Dan Dierdorf's attempts at abstract thought? The Android Operating System(if you are an IPhone person....you are soon to witness the biggest mistake ever made in IT strategy and planning, be made all over again, the same way, by the same company no less. Oh the hilarious irony. Saving Grace here? Jobs is dead this time.)?

Of course not. Why would lawyers allow themselves to be unable to make a living in their profession, just because they were convicted of a felony? That's for everybody else. And we wonder why the propensity of the above sentence to represent the prevailing attitude in DC, correlates so nicely with the number of lawyers there.

I wonder how you think this makes you different than the rest of us? I've been doing, what you are now doing, for the last 10 years. So...yeah...health insurance costs suck. Obamacare has 1%(generous) chance of making this cost lest, and 99% chance of making it cost more....especially when the actuaries get the real data. Are you or your friend capable of reading a newspaper or performing a web search? This isn't about being smarter, this is about situational awareness. Mine is perfect. (I'll just tell you: that's a troll, using Archer no less...one of many I've specifically designed for you over the years. I don't have to tell people I'm smarter than you, I just have to keep creating the conditions for you to prove it.) Look, your dopey little thing here hasn't worked, isn't working, and will never...primarily because most here are familiar with irony, and the pot, and the kettle. Yeah, what happens when your 10% becomes 30? Huge deal. Dude, underestimation of this nearly cost me the whole shebang my 3rd year of this...whatever this thing I do is called. I had employees with every excuse to leave, due to our "solution", which screwed them over. Luckily, we had a good crew, and they knew the score...because I made sure they did, from day 1. But, I got lucky. Things could have gone very badly. As it stood, I lost one guy who was just looking for an excuse to leave and compete with me. This gave him his opening. If some had joined him? Who knows? He's long gone, but, neither you or I need this kind of hassle. Word to the wise: it is a big deal. I'm thinking of telling some of our contractors to do the following: Get temporary insurance(11 month) which isn't touched by Obamacare, pay the fine, and if you get really sick, cancel and then sign up for the exchange. This means: 1. You save between $1 and $5k per year(depends of course). 2. You can keep shopping all year, because you can quit temp insurance any time(usually) without paying a penalty(fee...whatever). It's like a corporate apartment, you can leave any month, but you pay more for the privlege. However, you STILL pay less than Obamacare. Pause: Think about that for a second. Temp insurance has always been a rip off...yet...it's now more "affordable" than Obamacare. 3. If it really hits the fan, and you are looking at hitting your temp insurance claim limit(another reason it sucks, but, again: Obamacare), the "no pre-existing" thing means you are never in any real danger. Most of the people I work with can afford to take a one-time $5-8k hit, which is what the exchange deductible would cost. 4. Essentially you are betting on yourself to stay healthy, yes....but...you are getting a huge point spread in your favor, and you always get a bigger pay off than what you bet = saving the $1-5K. 5. Your bet is always hedged, big time. The only trouble with the above: if everybody does it, this guarantees the death of Obamacare, so, then you lose your hedge. However, given the realities here, it's likely this is gonna happen anyway. So, why bother getting ripped off in the meantime, while the "whatever comes next" is created? That's how I see it right now. I could be wrong, but, I doubt it.

JA is a serial projector, so....it's not hard to see why he would think his personal experience is not only valuable, but instructive...to others, even though in reality there's practically 0 chance of that being true(I will prove this below). Remember: We ALL, always, stand to learn something from JA... I did and I did....because I don't have an ADHD problem, and, because sometimes, things can't be explained properly in a sentence. Your post is not only valuable, it's instructive. Yes, it's going to be a kicker alright: a kick Democrats out of office kicker. See, the real problem is: all sorts of people, especially and including JA, are going to find out the hard way that 2014 was "just a guess", and that they essentially got lucky this time around. Next Oct/Nov, when the REAL data is in...the insurance companies are going to get a "do over" WRT rates/policies. If you thought "sticker shock" was an accurate term in 2013.... Thus, it's not just JA's story that is NOT instructive as we move from signing up in 2013, to doing it in 2014, it's everbody's. Everbody's 2013 signup experience, by definition, will not inform their 2014 experience, because: real, not estimated data. As I said above: I will prove it, and I just did. Well, there's a 1% chance that a real miracle happens...which says that 2014 pricing was overestimated. So, there's that. (And of course, the Ds have built in a "blame the insurance companies, not us" excuse into this entrire thing. It won't work.) It's not hard for anybody here to accept what you're saying. Watch: I accept what you're saying, fully, and without equivocation. Done. Now, read what I wrote above, understand it first, and then accept what I'm saying. Or...don't. It matters not. You're going to have to, sooner or later, whether you like it or not. What I wrote above = gravity. It is reality, and always has been(well, since 2009). It's merely a matter of time...until you "discover" it. I wonder: are you even aware of the state of the Maryland exchange? Do you have any idea how close it is to utter collapse, already? Help: http://townhall.com/...change-n1764642 Now? It's "emergency" time : http://www.washingto...ca3b_story.html All it's going to take (now appears to be inevitable) is for "the plan" to continued to be followed as they have right along, coupled with this "emergency" legislation(but it really doesn't matter much if they pass it or not). That pretty much seals the Maryland exchange's fate. Whether it dies now, or 9 months from now, doesn't matter. The only difference is that is: perhaps you and yours will get covered for 9 months, rather than 0 months. We'll see.... ...but, I highly doubt the word "happy" will be in your report.

I think it's hilarious that a dude who clearly has little/no idea what our backgrounds are begins by criticizing them. I also think it's hilarious that I've been doing "math and science", quite well, for my entire life now, according to every measurement there is...yet somehow only on this single issue, Global Warming, I'm suddenly incapable of conceiving what is so "simple"? Next, this 97% thing is so dopey. Every time I hear it, I think: Copernicus. Galileo. These are people who went through hell...because they didn't agree with the 97% either. I doubt anybody would dare to question their "science skills". What is the difference between these guys, real scientists, who coincidentally didn't have a political party-->government trough from which they fed(and whose vested interest is in having them keep churning out the "data")... ....and the 97%? Those guys could back up what they were saying. Every day, all the time, and that is the ONLY reason why they weren't executed...by those who called them heretics. The Inquisitors couldn't bring themselves to override all reason completely. In contrast to these guys, the 97%...when confronted with empirical evidence that blows significant holes in their model designs/theories, come up with the lamest of lamedick contingency plans/workarounds/edge cases I've ever seen. To put that in context: I've done work for Utilities/Insurance Companies and the US Government. These environtologists still take the cake for prevarication. Yes, yes, the warming is hiding at the bottom of the ocean = the one place we can't measure 24/7. Or...Global Warming pollution...is masking the effect...of Global Warming pollution. "Scientists" are putting forward these contingencies as a last ditch effort to "secure the bunker" they now live in(and will die in). But yeah, I'm the one with the science problem? No. I've seen this before: this is what happens when the other project/consultant/client antagonist realizes they are losing, and our project/effort is winning. If they don't do/say something, anything, they know: it's over. Who are the people throwing around the invective, and ignoring the data? Who's calling people "deniers"(heretics)? Who are the people attack the posters here... ...rather than providing sound arguments as to why the polar ice cap has gotten bigger, and not disappeared, as they predicted? If we could reanimate Galileo...who would he say reminds him of the Inquisition? Who would he say reminds him of himself?

EJ's release, pocket awareness, and work ethic all mean: it doens't matter where we picked him, I want to see us give him a chance to develop a little. If he was a UDFA, but I saw that release? I'd want the same thing: give him a chance to compete. If I was walking by Delaware Park, and I saw a release like EJ's? I'd pay the guy to let me represent him, and I'd get a very nice return on my money. That's before I know about the awareness and the work ethic. You can't teach what EJ has with that arm. You simply cannot. It's like the difference between a Randy Johnson...and everybody else. So, no, draft position doesn't matter. I've seen EJ throw 50 yard bombs on a line and hit our WRs in stride...multiple times this season. There's elite level QB potential there....the only question now is: what does he do in the off-season, which will inform what he does in the first 6 games of next year...and that will tell us where we really are with EJ.

Yes, there's opinion...and then there's just utter nonsense. EJ's release is the closest to Marino's that I've seen...since Marino. It's measurable, and it's consistent. You want to say he's a slow reader...that's a matter of opinion, and I don't have any issue with it. Perhaps he gets better, perhaps he doesn't. But his release is the quickest, most effortless...maybe in the entire league. That's what people don't get: that's the one thing you can't teach...much...and EJ has "it". "It" doesn't matter if the ball doesn't go where it needs to go, due to bad reads, footwork, etc. Doing all the other things right, but not having the release? That = Ryan Fitzpatrick. Bottom Line: Now that EJ can see what he needs to do, he needs to spend the whole offseason practicing it. IF he can get the rest of it right, he can be absolutely deadly.

Hackett may call that game, but, as last game clearly showed, Thad can't execute that game. Now, can Thad get better? Sure he can, but that = unknown. Also did EJ get hurt because he stands in the pocket too long/doesn't read the blitz/get's himself auto-sacked? No. EJ got hurt running the football. We can't pretend that's the same thing.

Cherry picking implies an agenda. I'm not sure I'm ready to accuse posters of having an anti-EJ agenda....because...if they are anti-EJ...what are they for? Todd McShay? I will accuse them of over-reliance on the "same old Bills" argument...because of the ease of that position. You don't really have to think too much. Until the Bills get into the playoffs....everything is a nail with that argument. It's lazy. If you can't see the obvious differences in this team, in only one year, then you're not trying.

Yeah....then there's this: http://www.nfl.com/fantasyfootball/story/0ap2000000304390/article/going-deep-qbs-could-offer-holiday-surprise-for-2014 EJ needs more time on the field, period. Evaluating a guy who hasn't played more than 5 games in a row is still useful, but, everything he does wrong is a direct result of not being ready to play in the league. I wish that he'd had a chance to either play the full season, or sit for a year, because then this whole issue would be a lot more straightforward. Instead, we have some people drawing conclusions on incomplete data(or flat out emoting in some cases). They could be right, but not because they have a clear argument that makes them right. If they are right, it will only be because they get lucky, and the facts of next year, which no one knows, certainly not them, support them. 3 games of 100+ passer rating? How does one account for that?

No. Which means: no. We don't waste draft resources on unknowns. We have places we need to draft high(O line, TE/Possesion WR, DB...in order...or...did you forget how many times we lost in the early season because of bad DB play?)