Orton's Arm Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 I am using an iPad, same operating system as a Mac. 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. What exactly about Manuel's NFL career has led you to conclude he can't play? > 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.
chris heff Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 > 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. In your previous post you state that FSU offense was a one read simplified offense. 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. Pro style? Maybe but not really. Limited number of plays from multiple formations, it is hard on young receivers. Which complicates thinks for any QB. 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.
Rubes Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 A side note: Greg Cosell was very harsh in his evaluation of Barkley in this draft. His main criticisms dealt with his arm strength and lack of athleticism. He liked Nassib a lot. If I recall correctly he also liked EJ Manuel. Cosell's podcast talking about Manuel has disappeared, but I found this on NFL.com from March: NFL Films guru Greg Cosell -- like Mayock, knee-deep in game film -- also sees something intriguing in Manuel's game. "When you look at Manuel, there's a lot to work with. There's size, there's arm strength, there's athleticism, and I think he can run read-option stuff," Cosell said Thursday on the Yahoo! Sports Shutdown Corner draft podcast. "Now, are there other things? He's a little sloppy with his footwork. He had a tendency to fall away from throws. I thought at times he was a bit of a pusher (of the ball) with a very high elbow position. There were times when he leaned over his front foot when he had to re-set, and that impacted his ability to make accurate throws. As most quarterbacks are in college, he was very over-reactive to bodies around him." Said Cosell: "There are concerns here, but then when you look at some of the positives -- stronger arm, the movement, at times he was very composed -- I'm very anxious to see where he gets drafted, because he gives you that read-option factor." For what it's worth.
Orton's Arm Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 In your previous post you state that FSU offense was a one read simplified offense. 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. Pro style? Maybe but not really. Limited number of plays from multiple formations, it is hard on young receivers. Which complicates thinks for any QB. 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. > 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.
BillnutinHouston Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 What does it say about EJ if the 30th QB in the league is projected to beat him out. Who's making this projection, other than you?
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Who's making this projection, other than you? All the EXPERTS
Marv's Neighbor Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 I like him as an analyst but I can't speak to Ron Jaworski the person. I find it interesting that they named a stadium in Lackawanna Ron Jaworski Stadium. And then a few years later, stripped it of the name. I didn't know the name was stripped, I just thought that Smokes Creek flooded again and washed it off.
JohnC Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Cosell's podcast talking about Manuel has disappeared, but I found this on NFL.com from March: For what it's worth. Thanks for the link. It was informative. What does it say about his future pro prospects? It's inconclusive as it is for most qb prospects. The only recent prospect that was almost a given was Luck. He was as close to being a ready pro qb as I have seen in a long time. He was a Peyton like prospect but more athletically gifted. I understand Edward's Arm's hesitancy to embrace Manuel. He gives cogent reasons as to why he is not buying the product, at least at this point. Manuel's success or failure is going to be very much influenced by the way he is coached. Will they immediately throw him in the fray, or will they gradually bring him along? The way they handle him will be critical. Even if they take a slow and steady trac with him I don't believe that it will take that long to determine if he will be a capable NFL qb. Just as some people learn languages differently (immersion vs gradually adding vocabulary) the coaches will have to determine what is the best approach for Manuel. He certainly is not going to start off playing a complicated multiple read offense in his rookie year. Simplifying the offense and then as he gains experience adding more complexity to the offense is probably the best way to go. The offense that Cam Newton played and even RGIII played was not a complicated offense. My preference is to get him on the field sooner rather than later. If he can handle the responsibility then go ahead with the immersion approach. If not, then bring him along more slowly. I rather find out that a player with tools can or can not play than play a qb I already know will not be a success because he lacks the requisite tools.
chris heff Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 > 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. Of course Manuel is more likely to fail than succeed. How many guys really succeed as an NFL QB? Every year how many are successful? Ten, fifteen ? The league is full of guys that weren't NFL ready at all positions. Everyone drafted after the third round and all UDFA aren't considered as ready. I watched most of FSU's games last year. I was intrigued my Manuel, thought he was the best QB in the draft. I don't think Jimbo Fishers offense played to Manuel's skill set. I understand that a college coach can't be constantly changing his offense to suit a QB who may start for a year or two. That being said both Manuel and Ponder were pretty successful in that offense. I think Ponder is better suited for it. In the NFL a coach can build around a QB skills, they hope to have the guy start for ten years. So what would you have done? Taken one of the other QBs in this draft? Kept Fitz? Traded for Alex Smith or somebody else? Free agency? Wait and draft somebody from this years college crop? Since Kelly retired the Bills have traded a couple of times, drafted in early rounds, including Manuel, a couple of times, mid rounds a couple of times, late rounds a couple of times and some really lack luster free agents. 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. In fact I read a article, before the draft, that said if there is a QB you want and need the best place to take him is mid first round. You won't over pay and if he works out you have an option on a fifth year. So why not take the guy with the most potential? NFL ready or not. By the way I always thought Losman was a goof ball
Dorkington Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Such as? There's been various articles and lineup projections that generally state that Kolb will likely be the starter for the Bills this year. If you really want me to dig those up, then you're barking up the wrong tree.
Orton's Arm Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 Of course Manuel is more likely to fail than succeed. How many guys really succeed as an NFL QB? Every year how many are successful? Ten, fifteen ? The league is full of guys that weren't NFL ready at all positions. Everyone drafted after the third round and all UDFA aren't considered as ready. I watched most of FSU's games last year. I was intrigued my Manuel, thought he was the best QB in the draft. I don't think Jimbo Fishers offense played to Manuel's skill set. I understand that a college coach can't be constantly changing his offense to suit a QB who may start for a year or two. That being said both Manuel and Ponder were pretty successful in that offense. I think Ponder is better suited for it. In the NFL a coach can build around a QB skills, they hope to have the guy start for ten years. So what would you have done? Taken one of the other QBs in this draft? Kept Fitz? Traded for Alex Smith or somebody else? Free agency? Wait and draft somebody from this years college crop? Since Kelly retired the Bills have traded a couple of times, drafted in early rounds, including Manuel, a couple of times, mid rounds a couple of times, late rounds a couple of times and some really lack luster free agents. 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. In fact I read a article, before the draft, that said if there is a QB you want and need the best place to take him is mid first round. You won't over pay and if he works out you have an option on a fifth year. So why not take the guy with the most potential? NFL ready or not. By the way I always thought Losman was a goof ball > 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.
jumbalaya Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 For those of us hoping that Kolb would be able to give Manuel a year on the bench to study and learn, I was disheartened to hear that Larry Fitzgerald is saying that Carson is his first real QB he has had since Kurt Warner retired. Sounds like Larry is not a fan of Kevin Kolb and looks to me like we have been duped again.
chris heff Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 > 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. Barkley would have been my second choice. I think at some point this year he starts. The two guys that seem to be definite first rounders in 2014 draft are Bridgewater and Boyd, are these guys more NFL ready than Manuel? The next two are Carr and Manziel. Are they ready? Two of these four guys are Juniors.
vincec Posted July 8, 2013 Posted July 8, 2013 For those of us hoping that Kolb would be able to give Manuel a year on the bench to study and learn, I was disheartened to hear that Larry Fitzgerald is saying that Carson is his first real QB he has had since Kurt Warner retired. Sounds like Larry is not a fan of Kevin Kolb and looks to me like we have been duped again. That's not a good sign, although TO gave Fitz a similar endorsement after he replaced Edwards as the starter when Fewell took over. And Fitz didn't turn out to be anything, so receivers don't know everything.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) > 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. Comparing EJ Manuel to Ryan Leaf? Seriously? C'mon, man. The part of Ryan Leaf that was not, and would never be, NFL ready was completely between his ears. If Manuel doesn't succeed, it won't, by all indications, be due to lack of mental effort or lack of coachability. Edited July 9, 2013 by Hopeful
Hapless Bills Fan Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 > 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. I don't know about "much", it's a fact that even QB drafted #1 overall are even money and by halfway down the first round, more likely to fail than to succeed overall. So that isn't news, nor is it specific to Manuel. To me, it's more important that the Bills finally pulled the trigger in the 1st and took a chance. Yeah, he could be a bust, but you never hit the shot you don't take.
hondo in seattle Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 Of course Manuel is more likely to fail than succeed. How many guys really succeed as an NFL QB? Every year how many are successful? Ten, fifteen ? The league is full of guys that weren't NFL ready at all positions. Everyone drafted after the third round and all UDFA aren't considered as ready. I watched most of FSU's games last year. I was intrigued my Manuel, thought he was the best QB in the draft. I don't think Jimbo Fishers offense played to Manuel's skill set. I understand that a college coach can't be constantly changing his offense to suit a QB who may start for a year or two. That being said both Manuel and Ponder were pretty successful in that offense. I think Ponder is better suited for it. In the NFL a coach can build around a QB skills, they hope to have the guy start for ten years. So what would you have done? Taken one of the other QBs in this draft? Kept Fitz? Traded for Alex Smith or somebody else? Free agency? Wait and draft somebody from this years college crop? Since Kelly retired the Bills have traded a couple of times, drafted in early rounds, including Manuel, a couple of times, mid rounds a couple of times, late rounds a couple of times and some really lack luster free agents. 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. In fact I read a article, before the draft, that said if there is a QB you want and need the best place to take him is mid first round. You won't over pay and if he works out you have an option on a fifth year. So why not take the guy with the most potential? NFL ready or not. By the way I always thought Losman was a goof ball Good questions, one and all. Given the available options, signing Kolb and drafting EJ was about the best course I could imagine. Not to say it will work out, but I'm ever hopeful.
billsrcursed Posted July 9, 2013 Posted July 9, 2013 (edited) For those of us hoping that Kolb would be able to give Manuel a year on the bench to study and learn, I was disheartened to hear that Larry Fitzgerald is saying that Carson is his first real QB he has had since Kurt Warner retired. Sounds like Larry is not a fan of Kevin Kolb and looks to me like we have been duped again. Meh, Warner and Palmer wouldn't have survived behind that line Kolb had to play behind either. I don't think anyone would have, it was historically bad. I'm with 'Chandler#81', wait and see. Edited July 9, 2013 by billsrcursed
Recommended Posts