JohnC

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? Would a talent like Rodgers be squandered going to a dysfunctional organization such as the Bills or Raiders? Would a qb such as Carson Palmer have had a much better career with a stable organization than with the chaotic organization that he played for in Cincinatti? I understand that the Bengals have recently stabilized their operation but when CP played there it was one distracting issue after another that kept this franchise in turmoil. The reason I bring up these questions is that I'm not certain how this staff is going to handle Manuel. Are they going to immediately throw him into the fire like Seattle did with Russell Wilson? Or are they going to gradually ease him in in his rookie year like the 49ers did with Kaepernick? The Seahawks stuck with Wilson even though he struggled the first half of the season. After that he was a marvelous player. His poise and maturity were quite impressive. I don't believe the Bills are going to win many games next year. But that doesn't mean it will be another typical wasted year if Manuel demonstrates that he is capable of being a legitimate franchise qb.

You are wrong when you make the point that there hasn't been much change over the past year. There has been dramatic change that has cleansed this contaminated franchise from the bizaare world of an inscrutable owner. Ralph Wilson is no longer involved in the operation. That in itself has allowed this suffocating franchise an opportunity to breathe. The befuddled Nix was gracefully let go and his position was taken over by a younger and more open minded GM. Hopefully, the old school restrictive mentality has been replaced by a fresher and more modern approach to running a franchise. A Doug Marrone hiring would not have happened if the old guard was still in place. I'm not prematurely declaring him a success but hiring him was a clear signal that things are changing. When Whaley finally took over the reigns he brought in some new personnel people. Although there wasn't much publicity over the new hires it signals that Whaley is adding younger and brighter staff to this very crusty organization. Without a doubt this year's draft had a different feel to it. The draft board was set up by Whaley. I can't say for sure but it seems to me that Whaley and Marrone were very influential in Buddy's last draft, moreso than Buddy himself. A number of inconsequential players were let go this year from a roster of mostly inconsequential players. It's going to take another couple of drafts to redo what Nix bungled. There was no doubt in my mind that Brandon ordered the drafting of a qb with the first or second round draft pick. Whaley and the coaching staff made the Manuel selection. How does one measure the success and failure of this year's season? For me there is only one way to do it: Determining whether Manuel can be a legitimate franchise qb. Don't get bogged down with the sideshow issue of this year's record. In this year success is measured by how the young qb performs. If he demonstrates that he is up to the task then the season is a success. If he demonstrates that he is not up to the taks then it is back to the drawing board. In the NFL of today the foundation for any franchise is the qb. Until that issue is addressed nothing else matters. For me the real issue is not about the team, it never has been. It is about the quality of the organization. If the organization is healthy then the roster will eventually be competitive. So far I am more than encouraged that things are moving in the right direction.

I am less enamored with Bledsoe than you are. What Bellichick astutely understood before other coaches caught on is that Bledsoe had limitations that could be exploited. Once his limitations were exploited then his effectiveness was stifled. As you noted Bledsoe was like a giraffe who couldn't move very well and couldn't throw the ball on the move. The defense that Bilichick used against him (as you noted) was to pressure him from the middle and make him throw on the move. Bledsoe started off very well for the Bills. Then the rest of the league used the Bilichick pressure up the middle strategy to keep him off balanced. Bledsoe simply couldn't throw while moving and he was slow in his delivery. Fatal flaws against fast paced and high pressure defenses. The Patriot organization demonstrated why they were up to speed while the Bills organization demonstrated why it was behind the curve. The Pats got rid of a player on the downside and they replaced him with a player with more upside. Donahoe gave up a first round pick for a stop gap player. A reflection of its backward approach to rebuilding a broken franchise. There are a number of things that I don't know about Manuel. 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.) Does he have an adequate football acumen that will allow him to succeed? I can't say for sure but I believe so. It shouldn't take long to recognize whether this qb has it or doesn't. Even with the expected early uneven performances you can get a sense that your designated franchise qb will be the long term answer or not. It will be interesting to see how it works out. This bedraggled franchise deserves a break!.

Your high assessment of Rodgers is the same view I have. I consider him currently to be the best qb in the game. 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. In this year's draft Ted Thompson (one of my favorite GMs along with Ozzie Newsome) added two good backs in Lacy (Alabama) and Franklin (UCLA). What the bumbling Buddy Nix didn't understand is that having a good qb allows you to compete even if you have a flawed team. The acquisition of a good qb should have been a priority of his on the first day as a GM. The addition of a Kaepernic or Wilson would have dramatically changed the dynamic of this stumbling franchise. As WEO has often stated the two most important responsibilities of a GM is getting a good HC and a qb. On that basis alone Nix as a GM is a failure. There is no doubt that Rodgers is more accomplished and dynamic qb than Big Ben. But what has impressed me very much is the way the Steeler organization fashioned their offense and put him in a position to succeed. In his first couple of years they accentuated the running game and very much simplified the offense for him. The team thrived. Now he is much more the focal point of the offense. That is an example of good coaching and an organization having an established philosophy to guide it Compare that to the Bills self-defeating three year cycle of changing and replacing staffs. Hopefully that staff churning.has come to a halt. If Manuel is a version of Roethlisberger I would gladly take that model. Don''t get greedy. Let me reprise some names for you: Holcumb, Losman, Edwards, Fitz, Jackson, Thigpen etc. etc. Sometimes the world of practicality trumps the world of instincts.Futilely waiting for the dream deal that doesn't materializes gets you nowhere. If you don't have Michelobe then you drink Budweiser.

In general I agree with your thesis of the critical importance of quickly absorbing and reacting to information for the qb position. Where I have a nuanced difference with your thesis is that I believe that there are different skill sets within the spectrum that will enable a qb to be a success. Ben Roethlisberg is not a MENSA candidate. He is not especially adept at diagnosiing defenses. What he does exceptionally well is have the ability to keep a play alive while under duress. He has an uncanny ability to find the open receiver when the defense breaks down with the extension of the play. His talent is keeping his eyes downfield when the defense is caving in on him and then accurately thrown the ball knowing that he is about to be pummelled.He has enormous amount of football courage. Favre has the same tendency to keep the play alive and then fling it down the field for the big play. Terry Bradshaw is not a qb known for grasping the intricacies of the defense and offense. He was a strong armed qb whose stats from a percentage standpoint were not overly impressive.Still he was able to make the big plays at critical junctures. Bradshaw's HC was Chuck Knoll. Terry destested him. Chuck Knoll was a very controlling, tough and detailed coach. Bradshaw simply was incapable of taking to his coach's disciplined style of play and coaching. When Bradshaw was inducted into the HOF he made it a point not to have him as the presenter of the statue. Both Big Ben and Terry B are far from falling within your high IQ for football or academic scales. Yet Terry is a HOF qb and Big Ben will probably be a Canton inductee when he finishes his career. My point is that there are different skill sets and different styles of play that can be very successful in the NFL. Good coaches accentuate the talents and diminish the liabilities of players. There are different roads to success. Sometimes you take the highway and sometimes you drive down the rutted road to get you to the same destination. Again, I mostly agree with your commentary. The only difference is that I would widen your spectrum a little more.

It doesn't matter what the new defensive system is Bryd is demonstrably better than any player on this roster who would take his place. There isn't a defensive scheme that couldn't use an instinctive DB who has a facility for intercepting passes. As I stated before I would rather spend a little more for a good player than over spend for a pedestrian and replaceable player. If you want your lackluster team to get better you add talent, not subtract it.

Byrd is not asking for an outlandish contract. He is asking for a market-rate contract. From what I understand the organizatioin is willing to pay him a reasonable price but not willing to reach a little more to keep him. That makes little sense to me. If you spend a little more than you want for a talented and productive player you end up with a productive player on a roster lacking that echelon of a player. Does anyone think that the Bills didn't overpay for Mario Williams? It certainly did. But to their credit the organization did what it had to do to get an impactful defensive player. What is frustrating with the Byrd situatiion is that this franchise made a good draft selectiion who ended up playing at a high level. Look at our paltry draft record. He is a success story and he is the type of player and person you would want to keep. For a losing franchise it is better to build on what you already have instead of repeating the cycle of replacing what you gave up.

Your categorizing of qb types is very interesting and thought provoking. The one qb I thought was going to be successful but wasn't was Trent Edwars. Initially, he did show promise. He was smart, came out of a college program that ran a pro offense and was an accurate mid-range passer. He had enough physical talent to be a success, at least that is what I thought at the time. Why did he fail?. You believe that he didn't have the football mental capacity to master a pro offense. I have a little different twist to why he didn't succeed in the pro game. His core problem wasn't that he couldn't decipher the defense so much as his problem had to do with his psychological makeup. He simply couldn't pull the trigger. His problem (bordering on neurosis) was that he couldn't act unless the situation was perfect, which usually doesn't happen in this fast and chaotic sport. He was a perfectionist who needed a clean environment when the environment is rarely clean. That is why he aggravatingly continued to dump the ball off instead of throwing into a tight window. How many times when you watched him play did you end up screaming at the TV to just throw the freaking ball down the field? He had a mental block that compelled him to take the safe dump off rather than risk throwing the ball down the field. It didn't help that his HC (Jauron) was inclined to the safe approach of not risking turnovers which enabled him to continue on with the meaningless safe dump passes. Why do you have Losman in the category of not having the mental capacity on and off the field? I agree with you that on the field he lacked the ability to grasp the game but I don't know why you negatively categorize him off the field?

The real issue isn't proving obstruction because it is a miniscule issue for the authorities working on a murder case. The issue that is relevant is how he behaved after the killing. Destroying evidence whether it can be restored or not reflects an involvement in the murder.The timeline of the destruction also comes into play. What would be his explanation as to why and when he destroyed his security tape or cell phone?

I respectfully disagree on this issue. Just because a segment of the evidence is destroyed doesn't mean that the crime didn't occur. In this case there is a body with bullet holes to prove that there was a crime. The point of the law is by creating obstacles to solving a crime you are obstructing justice. Using a prior example if you learn that there is an impending criminal or civil investigation regarding bank fraud you are prohibited by law from shredding documents that would be pertinent to the investigation. Even if the investigation hasn't been formalized you are still not permitted to destroy documents that may be relevant to an impending investigation. The shredding of relevant documents implicates you to the crime, not absolves you from the crime. Your point seems to be since evidence was destroyed that the crime can't be proved. The flip side is that since you have destroyed the evidence to, in this case, an actual crime that your actions/behavior are a testament to your culpability (in some way) to the crime. In other words being slick doesn't alter the reality that a crime has been committed.

If it is evidence in a crime it is. If he destroyed the gun used to kill someone it would be a crime. If he damaged the security system that recorded his coming and going related to the crime event it certainly is a crime. If an accountant gets rid of documents that he owns and controls knowing that an investigation is occurring or likely to occur that is a crime. etc., etc., etc., etc.

Remember, there is a presumption of innocense.! You also need to come to your assignment with your eyes wide open. If you fail at what you are generously paid to do some of my Sicilian associates will take you for a late night ride to one of our own junkyard sites. Trust me, they conduct their business with much more professionalism than the sloppy Herandez gang!

That was a terrific link you provided. It explained a lot and it also demonstrated the complexity of the law applied to circumstances. After reading the link I've come to the conclusion that the best strategy for the prosecution is keeping it simple and don't get too involved with some of the issues that can be challenged on appeal. There is already a mountain of evidence that continues to grow. Why risk using some of the secondary hearsey testimoney when you have the primary co-conspirator testimony? I salute JR Pitts. for his explanation of the hearsey rules. He was right on. If I ever decide to assassinate someone he will be called to represent me.

Are you aware that you don't have to be the person who pulled the trigger to be charged with murder? Much of the evidence you cited is damning. Add to that the clothes that were found in his apartment that he was wearing on the night of the assassination is also very damaging to his claim of innocense. Even if this is mostly a circumstantial case the mountain of evidence is so overwhelming that he can't offer too many plausible explanations to help his cause. The evidence you cited is not taken in the context of each piece of evidence on its own but it is taken in the context of the totality of it. To me it seems very overwhelming on the side of the prosecution.

From a self-interest standpoint both the player and organization have a stake in Byrd playing at a high level when he reports to the team. Bryd is not a slacker; he is a conscientious person who understands that he has to be ready to play wihen the contract situation is settled. If there is no long term agreement then he will be playing for the tender rate. It might not be what he wants but it is still a steep price. The front office certainly doesn't want to pay him at the tender rate and then see that high priced contract (even for one year) be wasted with him not playing. They want to get as much return on their investment that they can get out of him. That won't happen if he is on the bench being more of a cheerleader than a contributing player. If Byrd signs a tender with the expectation that the Bills won't sign a long term deal with him he is going to have the incentive to play well in order to showcase his talent and increase his market value to the rest of the league. On the other side of the coin the front office wants him to play well so that if they decide to trade him they will get a better return. The Revis situatiion is probably the best example where both the player and the team want the player to maximize his value for their own individual interests.

Pettine has been a coach in the NFL for a long time. He is well aware that tough negotiations on both sides of the table are part of the business side of the NFL Few coaches are in any way going to interject themselves into the dispute. Pettine is well aware, as all coaches are, that there is nothing unusual about a delayed resolution of a contract. Regardless of when Byrd reports to camp or to play he will demonstrably be better than the replacement player. Not only is Byrd the best safety on this team by far, he is also one of the better safeties in the league. Assuming that he remains with the Bills and reports to the team he will make Pettine's defense better. Pettine and the organization know that. If he returns it's very unlikely that he will be a bench warmer because it wouldn't help this talent deprived team and it would make little sense.

There is a saying that you learn more by listening than by talking. Every year I read the comments on this topic and then make the call. I didn't get the ST for free but I did get it at a discount. The total saving for the annual billing was $561. As some others got I got $35 off of my monthly bill, 6 months of a $10 discount on my sports package and charged $148 for the ST instead of the full price of $229. There were some who got better deals but I am more than happy. Thank you for the helpful comments.

The statements by AH's associates are probably going to be challenged by his attorney. But when you broadly look at this case the statements are for sure important but not essential. Assuming for the sake of argument that one of the associates stayed in the car and didn't escort the victim to the pee line. What eventually is said by one or two of the associates isn't as important as the fact that three people got out of the car, shots were fired (ammo retrieved) and then two people returned to the car without the victim. What was the demeanor of all three associates after the shooting? There is no indication that anyone panicked. There were no arguments over what was done. They all returned together to the house of AH. The two associates then left town until they were taken into custody by the authorities. There is no doubt that the two associates of AH are going to turn on AH. But regardless of who pulled the trigger in the eyes of the law they are all just as guilty. Will the authorities give a break to AH hoodlum buddies in this assassination case for their cooperation? Probably so. But because of the overwhelming evidence and the cold blooded nature of the killing it won't really mean much from a senstencing standpoint.

Being a dummy is no excuse for not putting in the effort to do your job properly. From a number of accounts that I have read his lack of preparation when he was with the Falcons during the season and offseason was appalling. I'm sure he has increased his work ethic with the Eagles. You make an excellent point that having the required qualities to be a qb doesn't automatically mean that you have the ability to read and react to the pro defenses. As you noted it is as much an art that some people can't master, no matter the effort. That is the point that Edwards Arm has convincingly been making in his posts.

Gut wrenching stupidity. The more one thinks about it the more agitated one gets. There is a difference between making a pick that doesn't work out and making a pick that doesn't make sense. All too often this organization has acted very oddly. It's beyond comprehension.. Just maybe now that our weird owner is not involved in the operation this franchise can become normal.

An interesting quality that Kaepernick, RGIII and Manuel have in common is that they were all very good students in school. Stanford very aggressively recruited Kaepernick. He could have gone to a number of IVY league schools.According to Peter King he aced his SATs. So don't let those hideous tatoos (my bias) fool you as to what type of person he is. RGIII was doing graduate work at the end of his college career. Manuel finished his degree work and was working on a graduate degree in International Relations while he was at FSU. All three of these individuals realize how much effort goes into studying and preparing for a task. Michael Vick was a very gifted player who spent little time and effort watching film and studying defenses. That is why he has to a great degree squandered his outstanding physical talents. Vincet Young certainly wasn't a student of the game. I'm confident that won't happen with the three discussed qbs.

Most often you simply don't know how a player is going to turn out. That is the conundrum. You noted that Steve Young is one of the all time great qbs in the NFL. How long did it take before he exhibited a mastery of the game? He played in the USFL, with Tampa and was traded to the 49ers and then sat behind Montana before taking over as the starting qb. It took a visionary coach (Walsh) who recognized the talent Young had and then it took years sitting on the bench before he attainted his lofty status. Another qb you cited was Drew Brees. He wasn't an instant success. In fact the Chargers drafted Rivers to replace him. Injuries were certainly a factor in his early struggles but it wasn't until he played for the Saints (years later after being drafted) before he became an elite qb. 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 abililty? It certainly isn't established in the made for TV Gruden camps. You find out by playing the prospect. Some special qbs, such as Luck, are a virtual lock to become what you think they will become before they even step on the pro field. But in most cases the prospect takes grueling baby steps learning how to play the game. Ask Tampa Bay how making a premature judgment on Steve Young affected their franchise? The theme of my posts is that you can't make categorical assumptions on qb prospects. You try them out; if they don't work out then you move on. You don't do what Nix did i.e. ignore the most important position on the field thus crippling your franchise. Finding out that a qb can't play in this challenging league is not the worst thing in the world for a franchise. Not aggressively addressing the most important position in the game is the major failure

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. Kaepernick was instrumental in getting his team to the SB and bringing it to the edge of victory. Also, RGIII elevated a long term floundering team to the playoffs. If he didn't get hurt there is a good chance that the Redskins could have been playing in the NFC championship game. What I'm stressing is that these two qbs have very early in their careers exhibited abilities that make them impact players. Their ability to be key players and the centerpiece of their respective teams is not a fluke. That is not going to be done without some mental wherewithal to go along with their physical talents. > As I noted in the prior posting you are making a mistake in pigeonholing players without the recognition that players evolve and get better. 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. You seem to stress the point that you are who you first appear to be. I am rejecting that generalization and giving more credence to the process of growth and development. Yes you are right that some prospects simply don't have the requisite traits to be a success at such a challenging position. But I'm cautioning you on being too premature in your judgment until the process runs its course. With your quick draw approach you seem to have in assessing qbs you would have made a quick negative judgment on a qb such as Favre. He was a physical talent who lacked in maturity and an early grasp of the game. The Packers were the beneficiaries of not making the quick disqualifying judgment on a player who turned out to be a HOF qb for them. > 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. Especially with the qb position it is better to be patient and make sure that your qb isn't up to the task than it is to too quickly go on to the next option. The Bills gave both Losman and Edwards a fair chance to prove that they were legitimate franchise qbs. It didn't work out. So what. They demonstrated they couldn't do the job or grow in to the job. They were then dispatched. That is how it works. The failing of Nix is that he didn't exhibit much urgency in finding the next legitimate franchise qb. That is why he is a dismal failure who set this franchise back by years.

I agree. 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. Harbaugh is a superb HC who recognized Kaepernick's talents and potential and knows how to develop him as a qb. Mike Shanahan is a superb HC who specializes on the offensive side of the ball. He will tame the nature of RGIII's game and will make him a more well-rounded qb. > But a weakness is not always a weakness if a player is receptive to hard work and good coaching. 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. For those two qbs the issue won't be so much as masking their limitations as it will be enhancing their now more physical approach to the game. As I noted in the prior posting you are making a mistake in pigeonholing players without the recognition that players evolve and get better. You are allowing the failures of the past recalcitrant qbs color your views on some of the more recent qbs. > 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. Joe Montana was to football what Larry Bird was to basketball. Seeing things develop before they fully develop. I have never made the claim that pocket passing qbs signal the end of an era. Far from it. Peyton Manning and Tom Brady are still elite qbs. The point I want to stress is that there are different skill sets and different qb styles. Each approach can succeed. There is no one way to be successful. The issue comes down to understanding what your strengths and weaknesses are and adjusting your game to emphasize your strengths and mitigate your weaknesses. That is where good coaching comes in.

Isn't being average at predicting how a prospect does better than how the pro scouts do? Prognosticating how qbs will do when they move from the college to the pro ranks is incredibly difficult. It is an inexact science with the mystifying human ingredient of character/personality mixed in with the variables. Even when all the traits (physcial and mental) signal success for a prospect that doesn't necessarily translate into success. . Sometimes being average is a good thing when the standard is typically below average. The bottom line is that it is a very difficult endeavor.