Ron Jaworski's on QB Kevin Kolb (Ranked #30)

[Go Deep]

If he has the chance to throw, maybe Kolb will be ok. He out up some decent numbers in Philly.

[San Jose Bills Fan]

Has anybody noticed how much Ron Jaworski looks like Mark Geragos?

 

The thing that's funny to me is that his nickname for obvious reasons is "Jaws" and as time passes, his jowels seem to get larger and larger.

 

Some day the dude's face won't fit on the screen.

[Orton's Arm]

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

 

> I agree with you that some qbs, if not most, simply don't have the capacity to be an impactful qb. How do you determine that ability?

 

You've raised a very good question. A team typically does not evaluate more than one (or at most two) QBs of the future at any given time. Normally a "QB of the future" will be given several years to prove himself before his team will give up on him. So how do you decide which players to allocate "QB of the future" status to?

 

You can look at physical gifts, or throwing accuracy, or work ethic, or toughness. All those are important traits. But arguably the single most important trait is mental ability--which is also the most difficult to measure. WRT mental ability, I'd divide QBs into four categories:

 

Category 1: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability both on and off the football field. Example: Peyton Manning.

Category 2: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability on the football field, but not necessarily off of it. Example: Jim Kelly

Category 3: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on the field, but do demonstrate it off of it. Example: Trent Edwards

Category 4: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on or off the field. Example: J.P. Losman

 

Obviously, I'd want my team's QB of the future to be as close to category 1 as possible. Manuel's off-field academic accomplishments are good enough to put him into category 3; but the fact he ran a simplified, one-read college offense keeps him out of categories 1 or 2. Just because he wasn't a category 1 or 2 college prospect doesn't guarantee he'll have severe mental limitations as a pro. But it does imply there's a much greater risk of that than would be the case with a category 1 or 2 college prospect. I'd argue that Drew Brees was in that category 1 - 2 category; and was therefore more likely to turn into a mentally accomplished QB than someone lower down on the ladder.

Edited July 13, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[chris heff]

 

 

> I agree with you that some qbs, if not most, simply don't have the capacity to be an impactful qb. How do you determine that ability?

 

You've raised a very good question. A team typically does not evaluate more than one (or at most two) QBs of the future at any given time. Normally a "QB of the future" will be given several years to prove himself before his team will give up on him. So how do you decide which players to allocate "QB of the future" status to?

 

You can look at physical gifts, or throwing accuracy, or work ethic, or toughness. All those are important traits. But arguably the single most important trait is mental ability--which is also the most difficult to measure. WRT mental ability, I'd divide QBs into four categories:

 

Category 1: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability both on and off the football field. Example: Peyton Manning.

Category 2: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability on the football field, but not necessarily off of it. Example: Jim Kelly

Category 3: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on the field, but do demonstrate it off of it. Example: Trent Edwards

Category 4: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on or off the field. Example: J.P. Losman

 

Obviously, I'd want my team's QB of the future to be as close to category 1 as possible. Manuel's off-field academic accomplishments are good enough to put him into category 3; but the fact he ran a simplified, one-read college offense keeps him out of categories 1 or 2. Just because he wasn't a category 1 or 2 college prospect doesn't guarantee he'll have severe mental limitations as a pro. But it does imply there's a much greater risk of that than would be the case with a category 1 or 2 college prospect. I'd argue that Drew Brees was in that category 1 - 2 category; and was therefore more likely to turn into a mentally accomplished QB than someone lower down on the ladder.

I agree with almost everything except FSU runs a simplified offense, where are you getting that from? I can't find anything anywhere that says that. As I've previously stated I have asked some FSU fans. The consensus is that their offense is really only a few plays but they are run from multiple formations. Have you watched any FSU games?

 

I have asked this before and it has gone unanswered. Have you ever seen EJ Manuel play football?

[JohnC]

> I agree with you that some qbs, if not most, simply don't have the capacity to be an impactful qb. How do you determine that ability?

 

You've raised a very good question. A team typically does not evaluate more than one (or at most two) QBs of the future at any given time. Normally a "QB of the future" will be given several years to prove himself before his team will give up on him. So how do you decide which players to allocate "QB of the future" status to?

 

You can look at physical gifts, or throwing accuracy, or work ethic, or toughness. All those are important traits. But arguably the single most important trait is mental ability--which is also the most difficult to measure. WRT mental ability, I'd divide QBs into four categories:

 

Category 1: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability both on and off the football field. Example: Peyton Manning.

Category 2: college QBs who demonstrate mental ability on the football field, but not necessarily off of it. Example: Jim Kelly

Category 3: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on the field, but do demonstrate it off of it. Example: Trent Edwards

Category 4: college QBs who do not demonstrate mental ability on or off the field. Example: J.P. Losman

 

Obviously, I'd want my team's QB of the future to be as close to category 1 as possible. Manuel's off-field academic accomplishments are good enough to put him into category 3; but the fact he ran a simplified, one-read college offense keeps him out of categories 1 or 2. Just because he wasn't a category 1 or 2 college prospect doesn't guarantee he'll have severe mental limitations as a pro. But it does imply there's a much greater risk of that than would be the case with a category 1 or 2 college prospect. I'd argue that Drew Brees was in that category 1 - 2 category; and was therefore more likely to turn into a mentally accomplished QB than someone lower down on the ladder.

 

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?

[Orton's Arm]

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?

 

I too felt Trent Edwards would be successful--hence my screen name. A quarterback good enough for Bill Walsh is good enough for me, I thought to myself.

 

The pre-draft evaluation of Edwards was that it was hard to evaluate his decision-making, because he played without an offensive line. Had his OL given him a more normal amount of time in the pocket--and had he used that time to make good decisions--that aspect of his game would have been less of a question mark.

 

And maybe you're right. Maybe he did have the innate capacity to process information quickly; but was held back by a need for perfection or some other mental block. As you hinted, he had exactly the wrong coaching staff. He needed coaches to encourage him to take more risks and play more aggressively. That's not necessarily an approach I'd associate with Dick Jauron and his staff.

 

As for Losman: Forbes ranked Tulane 129th back in 2012. That's respectable, but not nearly as good as Stanford. Unlike Stanford, I have the feeling Tulane is willing to lower its admissions standards for athletes on scholarship (such as Losman). Losman earned a political science degree at Tulane. At least at the school I attended, political science was considered one of the easiest available majors. Maybe it's different at Tulane. Also, Losman got a low score the first time he took the Wonderlic; and a more respectable score the second time around. Normally such increases in scores are the result of studying; which means that the first score is more indicative of future success than the second. Overall, there's nothing at Losman's off-field academic credentials which jumps out at me; or which would indicate any particular proclivity for quickly and accurately processing large quantities of football information.

[JohnC]

I too felt Trent Edwards would be successful--hence my screen name. A quarterback good enough for Bill Walsh is good enough for me, I thought to myself.

 

The pre-draft evaluation of Edwards was that it was hard to evaluate his decision-making, because he played without an offensive line. Had his OL given him a more normal amount of time in the pocket--and had he used that time to make good decisions--that aspect of his game would have been less of a question mark.

 

And maybe you're right. Maybe he did have the innate capacity to process information quickly; but was held back by a need for perfection or some other mental block. As you hinted, he had exactly the wrong coaching staff. He needed coaches to encourage him to take more risks and play more aggressively. That's not necessarily an approach I'd associate with Dick Jauron and his staff.

 

As for Losman: Forbes ranked Tulane 129th back in 2012. That's respectable, but not nearly as good as Stanford. Unlike Stanford, I have the feeling Tulane is willing to lower its admissions standards for athletes on scholarship (such as Losman). Losman earned a political science degree at Tulane. At least at the school I attended, political science was considered one of the easiest available majors. Maybe it's different at Tulane. Also, Losman got a low score the first time he took the Wonderlic; and a more respectable score the second time around. Normally such increases in scores are the result of studying; which means that the first score is more indicative of future success than the second. Overall, there's nothing at Losman's off-field academic credentials which jumps out at me; or which would indicate any particular proclivity for quickly and accurately processing large quantities of football information.

 

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.

Edited July 13, 2013 by JohnC

[Orton's Arm]

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.

 

Good points, and a well-expressed post.

 

No Super Bowl-winning quarterback currently in the NFL has scored below a 25 on the Wonderlic. (The 25 was Roethlisberger.) You are correct to cite Roethlisberger as an example of a modern-day QB who has success despite not being the most cerebral guy ever to have donned a uniform. The Bradshaw example is a little weaker, because one could credibly argue that the game's complexity has increased since the '70s; which would make a modern-day Bradshaw clone less successful than Bradshaw had been.

 

To return to the Roethlisberger example: I'd argue that in the Green Bay/Steelers Super Bowl, the Steelers had the better overall team. But the Packers had the better quarterback. Roethlisberger is very good--don't get me wrong--but Aaron Rodgers is significantly better. And the reason Rodgers is better is because of what's between his ears.

 

At this point in the discussion, there will be many who will say something along the lines of, "Manuel doesn't need to be another Aaron Rodgers. I'd be perfectly content--thrilled!--if he was the next Roethlisberger." Given that Manuel's Wonderlic score is slightly higher than Roethlisberger's, that possibility definitely exists.

 

And maybe that's the plan. Maybe the coaches are planning on designing an offense for Manuel similar to the one Roethlisberger employs at Pittsburgh; while hoping for the same results. On an instinctual level, I feel more confident with a highly cerebral, accurate QB than I would with someone like that. But I acknowledge the Roethlisberger model can be successful as well.

[chris heff]

 

 

Good points, and a well-expressed post.

 

No Super Bowl-winning quarterback currently in the NFL has scored below a 25 on the Wonderlic. (The 25 was Roethlisberger.) You are correct to cite Roethlisberger as an example of a modern-day QB who has success despite not being the most cerebral guy ever to have donned a uniform. The Bradshaw example is a little weaker, because one could credibly argue that the game's complexity has increased since the '70s; which would make a modern-day Bradshaw clone less successful than Bradshaw had been.

 

To return to the Roethlisberger example: I'd argue that in the Green Bay/Steelers Super Bowl, the Steelers had the better overall team. But the Packers had the better quarterback. Roethlisberger is very good--don't get me wrong--but Aaron Rodgers is significantly better. And the reason Rodgers is better is because of what's between his ears.

 

At this point in the discussion, there will be many who will say something along the lines of, "Manuel doesn't need to be another Aaron Rodgers. I'd be perfectly content--thrilled!--if he was the next Roethlisberger." Given that Manuel's Wonderlic score is slightly higher than Roethlisberger's, that possibility definitely exists.

 

And maybe that's the plan. Maybe the coaches are planning on designing an offense for Manuel similar to the one Roethlisberger employs at Pittsburgh; while hoping for the same results. On an instinctual level, I feel more confident with a highly cerebral, accurate QB than I would with someone like that. But I acknowledge the Roethlisberger model can be successful as well.

It is apparent that you are only interested in a philosophical discussion of what qualities are necessary to be a perfect NFL QB. You have no idea how simple or complex the FSU offense is and you have never seen EJ Manuel play one down of football.

[JohnC]

To return to the Roethlisberger example: I'd argue that in the Green Bay/Steelers Super Bowl, the Steelers had the better overall team. But the Packers had the better quarterback. Roethlisberger is very good--don't get me wrong--but Aaron Rodgers is significantly better. And the reason Rodgers is better is because of what's between his ears.

 

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.

 

 

 

At this point in the discussion, there will be many who will say something along the lines of, "Manuel doesn't need to be another Aaron Rodgers. I'd be perfectly content--thrilled!--if he was the next Roethlisberger." Given that Manuel's Wonderlic score is slightly higher than Roethlisberger's, that possibility definitely exists.

 

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.

 

And maybe that's the plan. Maybe the coaches are planning on designing an offense for Manuel similar to the one Roethlisberger employs at Pittsburgh; while hoping for the same results. On an instinctual level, I feel more confident with a highly cerebral, accurate QB than I would with someone like that. But I acknowledge the Roethlisberger model can be successful as well.

 

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.

Edited July 14, 2013 by JohnC

[Orton's Arm]

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.

 

> Your high assessment of Rodgers is the same view I have. I consider him currently to be the best qb in the game.

 

Agreed. If I was the GM of an expansion franchise, and if I could choose a rookie version of any active player, I'd pick Aaron Rodgers.

 

> Although he has played behind a poor OL and didn't have a credible running game to take the pressure off of him he still excelled.

 

You and I are on the same page. His fast information processing ability allowed him to produce at a high level, despite the bad OL and the lack of a running game. Compare that to a guy like Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw produced at a high level as well. But he had a tremendous running game, a fantastic OL, and two Hall of Fame WRs. A perfect situation. Bradshaw's most important strengths were his big arm and his ability to throw accurate intermediate to deep passes. He had the right tool set to take advantage of the opportunities his outstanding offensive supporting cast gave him.

 

But what about other QBs with those same strengths? Take Drew Bledsoe for example. Like Bradshaw, Bledsoe had a big arm, and very good accuracy on intermediate to deep throws. For the first part of Bledsoe's career, he played at a Hall of Fame level. You could mention him in the same sentence as Bradshaw without raising any eyebrows. But then something changed. The Patriots' offensive line got worse; and they responded by making their offense less dependent on intermediate to deep throws; and more reliant on shorter passes. Bledsoe was not a good fit for this new style of offense, and his numbers declined.

 

During Bledsoe's first eight games as a Bill, it seemed as though the old, Hall of Fame Bledsoe had returned. Everything was just perfect for that style of quarterback. But then he went up against Bill Belichick. I've read that, after the snap, it takes Bledsoe over three seconds to see what Brady can see in less than two. Belichick understood that weakness, and understood how to exploit it (pass rush up the middle). If you'd put Bledsoe through a time machine to make him the starting quarterback for the '70s Steelers, he probably would have had about the same level of success Bradshaw had. He wouldn't have had to worry about Belichick-devised defenses, or his OL getting manhandled by the other team's pass rushers, or a lack of commitment to the running game, or any of the other problems Bledsoe experienced during the last 2.5 years of his time with the Bills. Everything would have been all set up for him to keep producing at the same level we saw during his first eight Bills games.

 

Manuel is much more mobile than Bledsoe. Hopefully the Bills' offensive supporting cast will be better now than it was from 2002 - 2004. Maybe that combination of factors will allow Manuel to succeed where Bledsoe failed. On the other hand, Bledsoe's long balls were more accurate than Manuel's. It's possible that Manuel processes information more slowly than Bledsoe did. If the coaching staff designs an offense to maximize Manuel's strengths, without asking him to be something he's not, then there's a chance he'll succeed. This is not the quarterback experiment I would have chosen, but now that they've committed to Manuel, they may as well give this their best shot.

[Markjaro]

Regarding Kolb's ability to get the job done in B-lo, I think you have to go into it with an open mind. Whether he is rated number 30 or 10 is irrelevant since he and EJ are what we have to work with. Marrone and co. will decide who gives the team the best chance to win on day one. It should be pretty evident to them based on their training camp observations, and you go from there. Of course that calculus could change 3 weeks into the season but I trust the coaching staff to make a better decision about the starter than any of us armchair QBs/coaches... IMHO, I think Kolb may pleasantly surprise everyone and hold down the fort until EJ develops a little bit more.

[JohnC]

> Your high assessment of Rodgers is the same view I have. I consider him currently to be the best qb in the game.

 

Agreed. If I was the GM of an expansion franchise, and if I could choose a rookie version of any active player, I'd pick Aaron Rodgers.

 

> Although he has played behind a poor OL and didn't have a credible running game to take the pressure off of him he still excelled.

 

You and I are on the same page. His fast information processing ability allowed him to produce at a high level, despite the bad OL and the lack of a running game. Compare that to a guy like Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw produced at a high level as well. But he had a tremendous running game, a fantastic OL, and two Hall of Fame WRs. A perfect situation. Bradshaw's most important strengths were his big arm and his ability to throw accurate intermediate to deep passes. He had the right tool set to take advantage of the opportunities his outstanding offensive supporting cast gave him.

 

But what about other QBs with those same strengths? Take Drew Bledsoe for example. Like Bradshaw, Bledsoe had a big arm, and very good accuracy on intermediate to deep throws. For the first part of Bledsoe's career, he played at a Hall of Fame level. You could mention him in the same sentence as Bradshaw without raising any eyebrows. But then something changed. The Patriots' offensive line got worse; and they responded by making their offense less dependent on intermediate to deep throws; and more reliant on shorter passes. Bledsoe was not a good fit for this new style of offense, and his numbers declined.

 

During Bledsoe's first eight games as a Bill, it seemed as though the old, Hall of Fame Bledsoe had returned. Everything was just perfect for that style of quarterback. But then he went up against Bill Belichick. I've read that, after the snap, it takes Bledsoe over three seconds to see what Brady can see in less than two. Belichick understood that weakness, and understood how to exploit it (pass rush up the middle). If you'd put Bledsoe through a time machine to make him the starting quarterback for the '70s Steelers, he probably would have had about the same level of success Bradshaw had. He wouldn't have had to worry about Belichick-devised defenses, or his OL getting manhandled by the other team's pass rushers, or a lack of commitment to the running game, or any of the other problems Bledsoe experienced during the last 2.5 years of his time with the Bills. Everything would have been all set up for him to keep producing at the same level we saw during his first eight Bills games.

 

Manuel is much more mobile than Bledsoe. Hopefully the Bills' offensive supporting cast will be better now than it was from 2002 - 2004. Maybe that combination of factors will allow Manuel to succeed where Bledsoe failed. On the other hand, Bledsoe's long balls were more accurate than Manuel's. It's possible that Manuel processes information more slowly than Bledsoe did. If the coaching staff designs an offense to maximize Manuel's strengths, without asking him to be something he's not, then there's a chance he'll succeed. This is not the quarterback experiment I would have chosen, but now that they've committed to Manuel, they may as well give this their best shot.

 

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!.

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

 

 

> Your high assessment of Rodgers is the same view I have. I consider him currently to be the best qb in the game.

 

Agreed. If I was the GM of an expansion franchise, and if I could choose a rookie version of any active player, I'd pick Aaron Rodgers.

 

> Although he has played behind a poor OL and didn't have a credible running game to take the pressure off of him he still excelled.

 

You and I are on the same page. His fast information processing ability allowed him to produce at a high level, despite the bad OL and the lack of a running game. Compare that to a guy like Terry Bradshaw. Bradshaw produced at a high level as well. But he had a tremendous running game, a fantastic OL, and two Hall of Fame WRs. A perfect situation. Bradshaw's most important strengths were his big arm and his ability to throw accurate intermediate to deep passes. He had the right tool set to take advantage of the opportunities his outstanding offensive supporting cast gave him.

 

But what about other QBs with those same strengths? Take Drew Bledsoe for example. Like Bradshaw, Bledsoe had a big arm, and very good accuracy on intermediate to deep throws. For the first part of Bledsoe's career, he played at a Hall of Fame level. You could mention him in the same sentence as Bradshaw without raising any eyebrows. But then something changed. The Patriots' offensive line got worse; and they responded by making their offense less dependent on intermediate to deep throws; and more reliant on shorter passes. Bledsoe was not a good fit for this new style of offense, and his numbers declined.

 

During Bledsoe's first eight games as a Bill, it seemed as though the old, Hall of Fame Bledsoe had returned. Everything was just perfect for that style of quarterback. But then he went up against Bill Belichick. I've read that, after the snap, it takes Bledsoe over three seconds to see what Brady can see in less than two. Belichick understood that weakness, and understood how to exploit it (pass rush up the middle). If you'd put Bledsoe through a time machine to make him the starting quarterback for the '70s Steelers, he probably would have had about the same level of success Bradshaw had. He wouldn't have had to worry about Belichick-devised defenses, or his OL getting manhandled by the other team's pass rushers, or a lack of commitment to the running game, or any of the other problems Bledsoe experienced during the last 2.5 years of his time with the Bills. Everything would have been all set up for him to keep producing at the same level we saw during his first eight Bills games.

 

Manuel is much more mobile than Bledsoe. Hopefully the Bills' offensive supporting cast will be better now than it was from 2002 - 2004. Maybe that combination of factors will allow Manuel to succeed where Bledsoe failed. On the other hand, Bledsoe's long balls were more accurate than Manuel's. It's possible that Manuel processes information more slowly than Bledsoe did. If the coaching staff designs an offense to maximize Manuel's strengths, without asking him to be something he's not, then there's a chance he'll succeed. This is not the quarterback experiment I would have chosen, but now that they've committed to Manuel, they may as well give this their best shot.

 

I would agree with the bolded.

 

Interesting that Rodgers came from an even more gimmicky college system than Manuel. He did not display the ability to consistently stand in the pocket and go through three or four reads at the college level, in Ted Tedford's "bubble screen" system at Cal. Simply not what they asked him to do, and teams were unsure if his college success would translate to the NFL. And he fell in the draft.

 

The Packers trusted their evaluation and their projection of that high-upside prospect. They rolled the dice in the first round despite never having seen him in anything resembling a pro-style offense, and were later rewarded with a Lombardi.

Edited July 15, 2013 by J-Gun Boone

[Orton's Arm]

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!.

 

> I am less enamored with Bledsoe than you are.

 

I never said I was enamored with Bledsoe. I opposed the Bledsoe trade at the time it was made. I felt like an idiot during his first eight games as a Bill. But then after that, I realized I was right and the Bills were wrong. It was a depressingly familiar realization.

 

The point I was making wasn't that Bledsoe is underrated--he isn't--but that Terry Bradshaw may be overrated. Yes, Bradshaw looked incredible during the '70s. But that was exactly the right situation for him; and a lot of what made it the right situation was that his offensive supporting cast dominated their defensive counterparts. During the latter part of his career Bledsoe typically didn't have that luxury; which is the main reason why his results differed from Bradshaw's. Put another way: had TD traded for a 30ish Bradshaw back in 2002, Bradshaw would have looked just as mediocre in 2003 and 2004 as Bledsoe had; and for the same reasons. Anything Bradshaw could do, Bledsoe could do about equally well. Without a significant advantage over Bledsoe in any aspect of his game, there's nothing Bradshaw could have done to have avoided a Bledsoe-like fate.

 

> What I do know for sure is that he is mobile and he has a strong and accurate arm. (Traits that Fitz never had and never will have.)

 

Losman was also mobile with a strong arm. I'll grant that Manuel is significantly more accurate than Losman--at least on short to intermediate passes.

 

> Does he have an adequate football acumen that will allow him to succeed?

 

This is the $100 million question.

 

J. Gun Boone: The Packers trusted their evaluation and their projection of that high-upside prospect.

 

Yes, but the parallel is not exact. Rodgers has a significantly higher Wonderlic score than Manuel. I'm not saying the Wonderlic is the end-all, be-all. But at least they had something to indicate Rodgers might have the capacity for superior on-field intelligence. Manuel's Wonderlic score is solid and respectable--but not in the Aaron Rodgers category.

[eball]

This bedraggled franchise deserves a break!.

 

As do its bedraggled fans!

[2020 Our Year For Sure]

J. Gun Boone: The Packers trusted their evaluation and their projection of that high-upside prospect.

 

Yes, but the parallel is not exact. Rodgers has a significantly higher Wonderlic score than Manuel. I'm not saying the Wonderlic is the end-all, be-all. But at least they had something to indicate Rodgers might have the capacity for superior on-field intelligence. Manuel's Wonderlic score is solid and respectable--but not in the Aaron Rodgers category.

 

Even so-- Manuel was placed into category 3 because he didn't run a pro-style offense in college. Surely Aaron Rodgers belongs in that same category for the same reason.

[Orton's Arm]

Even so-- Manuel was placed into category 3 because he didn't run a pro-style offense in college. Surely Aaron Rodgers belongs in that same category for the same reason.

 

Bah! You're using my own words against me!

 

I agree that according to the category system I outlined earlier, both Rodgers and Manuel belong in category 3. But just as not all 6th round QBs turn out to be Tom Brady, not all category 3 QBs turn out to be Aaron Rodgers.

[JohnC]

Bah! You're using my own words against me!

 

I agree that according to the category system I outlined earlier, both Rodgers and Manuel belong in category 3. But just as not all 6th round QBs turn out to be Tom Brady, not all category 3 QBs turn out to be Aaron Rodgers.

 

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.

[Dorkington]

I've skipped some stuff, so maybe I missed it...

 

But where does EJ processing information slowly come from? Scouting reports? Media inventions? Is there tape on this that I can see?