I still believe in EJ Manuel

[John from Riverside]

I could take that kind of average every week!

[eball]

No accuracy, bad footwork, won't throw downfield...yep, that sums up EJ's play against one of the best defenses in the league today. With no running game to speak of!

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

It appears that you have already made an iron-clad judgment on Manuel. You have a specific qb profile that you adhere to when evaluating prospects. You would have passed on unconventional qbs such as Newton or Kaepernick and favored more cerebral qbs such as Schaub and Alex Smith. Another way of describing your position on qb prospects is that you have a script and unless a prospect matches with your self-limiting script you will not deviate on your approach to grading qb prospects.

 

My problem with your position (approach) is that it is too restrictive. Open up your playbook and add more pages to it. There are different styles of running that can be successful. There are different types of receivers that can be successful. There are different coaching styles that can be successful. There are different philosophies that GMs take in building teams that do well.

 

I don't know if EJ is going to be a successful qb. No one does. But that is the point. It is simply too early to make that determination on him. What you witness this year is not necessarily what you will witness next year and the year after. It's a process. Sometimes the road to a destination is smooth and in a straight line. And more often than not the road follows a circuitous route with a lot of pot holes.

 

I have no problem with you being uncertain about EJ, as I am. But I do have an issue with your declarative position on him at this stage of the game.

 

> You have a specific qb profile that you adhere to when evaluating prospects. You would have passed

> on unconventional qbs such as Newton or Kaepernick and favored more cerebral qbs such as Schaub and

> Alex Smith.

 

There's some truth to the above. I believe the following:

 

1) There is wide variation in people's ability to quickly process large amounts of information

2) Most college QB prospects do not have the mental bandwidth necessary to become elite NFL QBs

3) If a college prospect does not demonstrate he's a polished pocket passer; it's extremely unlikely he has anything close to Aaron Rodgers-type bandwidth

4) Multiple attempts have been made to design offenses for quarterbacks with great physical gifts and limited mental bandwidth. These offenses can sometimes achieve limited successes: Losman's one good year for Buffalo, Kordell Stewart's one good year for Pittsburgh, etc. But when you think about QBs who sustained a high level of play for many years; you're almost invariably looking at accurate passers with high bandwidth.

 

There are times when I've messed up in evaluating QBs. Unlike other Ivy League schools, Stanford typically applies the same or very similar admissions standards to athletes on scholarship as it does to everyone else. Based on that, plus the Bill Walsh recommendation, I'd thought Trent Edwards had the kind of mental bandwidth necessary to be a very good NFL QB. I was wrong.

 

I've since come to realize that there is almost no substitute for a QB proving himself as a pocket passer in college. Edwards' Stanford degree was not a substitute for that; even though I'd thought it was at the time.

 

I've concluded that if I'm going to err, I'd rather err by taking a guy whose success as a college pocket passer demonstrated throwing accuracy and mental bandwidth. That's much better than taking a guy who wasn't a good pocket passer in college, and hoping either a) to turn him into a good pocket passer as a pro (very unlikely) or b) designing an offense to accommodate his limitations and maximize his strengths (very unlikely to be successful for more than 1 - 2 years).

 

One of my worst fears with Manuel is that he'll play well enough to string the Bills along for the next few years; but never well enough to achieve anything in the postseason. If he has 1 - years' worth of performances like he did against the Jets, the Bills might not take a first round QB until 2016. And might well pass up some very good QB prospects between now and then. Prospects who are a much better fit for the standard-issue NFL QB success story than Manuel.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[YoloinOhio]

EJ was garbage today. We only one because Graham, Goodwin, and the defense bailed him out.

? 20-28, 2 TD, 0 INT in the wind against one of the top defenses in the league and no running game?

[26CornerBlitz]

? 20-28, 2 TD, 0 INT in the wind against one of the top defenses in the league and no running game?

 

Sarcasm dude.

[dave mcbride]

 

 

> You have a specific qb profile that you adhere to when evaluating prospects. You would have passed

> on unconventional qbs such as Newton or Kaepernick and favored more cerebral qbs such as Schaub and

> Alex Smith.

 

There's some truth to the above. I believe the following:

 

1) There is wide variation in people's ability to quickly process large amounts of information

2) Most college QB prospects do not have the mental bandwidth necessary to become elite NFL QBs

3) If a college prospect does not demonstrate he's a polished pocket passer; it's extremely unlikely he has anything close to Aaron Rodgers-type bandwidth

4) Multiple attempts have been made to design offenses for quarterbacks with great physical gifts and limited mental bandwidth. These offenses can sometimes achieve limited successes: Losman's one good year for Buffalo, Kordell Stewart's one good year for Pittsburgh, etc. But when you think about QBs who sustained a high level of play for many years; you're almost invariably looking at accurate passers with high bandwidth.

 

There are times when I've messed up in evaluating QBs. Unlike other Ivy League schools, Stanford typically applies the same or very similar admissions standards to athletes on scholarship as it does to everyone else. Based on that, plus the Bill Walsh recommendation, I'd thought Trent Edwards had the kind of mental bandwidth necessary to be a very good NFL QB. I was wrong.

E

I've since come to realize that there is almost no substitute for a QB proving himself as a pocket passer in college. Edwards' Stanford degree was not a substitute for that; even though I'd thought it was at the time.

 

I've concluded that if I'm going to err, I'd rather err by taking a guy whose success as a college pocket passer demonstrated throwing accuracy and mental bandwidth. That's much better than taking a guy who wasn't a good pocket passer in college, and hoping either a) to turn him into a good pocket passer as a pro (very unlikely) or b) designing an offense to accommodate his limitations and maximize his strengths (very unlikely to be successful for more than 1 - 2 years).

 

One of my worst fears with Manuel is that he'll play well enough to string the Bills along for the next few years; but never well enough to achieve anything in the postseason. If he has 1 - years' worth of performances like he did against the Jets, the Bills might not take a first round QB until 2016. And might well pass up some very good QB prospects between now and then. Prospects who are a much better fit for the standard-issue NFL QB success story than Manuel.

Manuel played very well today. Agaisnt a good d-line that utterly shut down the run, he took ZERO sacks. He also proved that he could slice his pases through a very stiff wind. His season qb rating is now 82.1, which is quite good for a rookie.

[MDH]

If he has 1 - years' worth of performances like he did against the Jets, the Bills might not take a first round QB until 2016. And might well pass up some very good QB prospects between now and then. Prospects who are a much better fit for the standard-issue NFL QB success story than Manuel.

 

Only a Bills fan could frown at the idea of having a years worth a QB performances like today.

Edited November 18, 2013 by MDH

[YoloinOhio]

Sarcasm dude.

The types of posts I saw all week on this board from some people about EJ led me to think it wasn't sarcasm. Sad.

[Boatdrinks]

>

 

There's some truth to the above. I believe the following:

 

There are times when I've messed up in evaluating QBs. Unlike other Ivy League schools, Stanford typically applies the same or very similar admissions standards to athletes on scholarship as it does to everyone else. Based on that, plus the Bill Walsh recommendation, I'd thought Trent Edwards had the kind of mental bandwidth necessary to be a very good NFL QB. I was wrong.

 

 

One of my worst fears with Manuel is that he'll play well enough to string the Bills along for the next few years; but never well enough to achieve anything in the postseason. If he has 1 - years' worth of performances like he did against the Jets, the Bills might not take a first round QB until 2016. And might well pass up some very good QB prospects between now and then. Prospects who are a much better fit for the standard-issue NFL QB success story than Manuel.

Your post is such garbage I don't know where to begin. It's a waste of "bandwidth". First , wow, YOU actually made a mistake in evaluating a QB? What are the NFL teams to do?I've wondered why you spend so much time on this board instead of as a highly paid consultant to every NFL franchise. The story about Bill Walsh recommending Edwards is and always was so overblown. He may have mentioned him casually in a conversation with a GM once. It had limited credibility at the time and even less now. It appears your "fear" is that Manuel actually succeeds. NFL teams give all players intelligence tests, they carry particular weight for O lonemen and QB's. You act as if your opinion is somehow a revelation to NFL franchises. Manuel by all accounts scored well. He also completed a bachelors degree early and was working on an advanced degree. It's not the be all end-all, and there is no one perfect formula. Marino scored badly on the IQ test, and was one of the best passers ever. No one would ever accuse him of being anything other than a pocket passer. From your posts, one might wonder just what your objection to the current wave of "athletic" QB's in the NFL is. Most of the QB's you've mentioned when discussing Manuel (A. Smith, Kapernick) share a certain trait with him. Curious. Interesting how "athletic" seems to be a code for "unintelligent" or lacking "mental bandwidth". This is football. As Yogi Bera would say, "it ain't rocket surgery". Enjoy stewing over a Bills win. Imagine the agony if Manuel strings together a years worth of performances like today. You might have to wait years for the Bills to select a QB with mental bandwidth that is up to your standards (Gasp!). Better not cancel the NHL center Ice package just yet.

 

Manuel played very well today. Agaisnt a good d-line that utterly shut down the run, he took ZERO sacks. He also proved that he could slice his pases through a very stiff wind. His season qb rating is now 82.1, which is quite good for a rookie.

But c'mon man. He isn't a high mental bandwidth(i.e. white) QB. I mean, aren't you afraid the Bills may actually get to the playoffs with EJ at QB, but NOT win the Superbowl? What is a fan to do?

[Orton's Arm]

 

Your post is such garbage I don't know where to begin. It's a waste of "bandwidth". First , wow, YOU actually made a mistake in evaluating a QB? What are the NFL teams to do?I've wondered why you spend so much time on this board instead of as a highly paid consultant to every NFL franchise. The story about Bill Walsh recommending Edwards is and always was so overblown. He may have mentioned him casually in a conversation with a GM once. It had limited credibility at the time and even less now. It appears your "fear" is that Manuel actually succeeds. NFL teams give all players intelligence tests, they carry particular weight for O lonemen and QB's. You act as if your opinion is somehow a revelation to NFL franchises. Manuel by all accounts scored well. He also completed a bachelors degree early and was working on an advanced degree. It's not the be all end-all, and there is no one perfect formula. Marino scored badly on the IQ test, and was one of the best passers ever. No one would ever accuse him of being anything other than a pocket passer. From your posts, one might wonder just what your objection to the current wave of "athletic" QB's in the NFL is. Most of the QB's you've mentioned when discussing Manuel (A. Smith, Kapernick) share a certain trait with him. Curious. Interesting how "athletic" seems to be a code for "unintelligent" or lacking "mental bandwidth". This is football. As Yogi Bera would say, "it ain't rocket surgery". Enjoy stewing over a Bills win. Imagine the agony if Manuel strings together a years worth of performances like today. You might have to wait years for the Bills to select a QB with mental bandwidth that is up to your standards (Gasp!). Better not cancel the NHL center Ice package just yet.

 

 

But c'mon man. He isn't a high mental bandwidth(i.e. white) QB. I mean, aren't you afraid the Bills may actually get to the playoffs with EJ at QB, but NOT win the Superbowl? What is a fan to do?

 

Back in the late '90s, I strongly expressed the position that Peyton Manning was a much better prospect than Ryan Leaf. Manning was described as the more polished pocket passer; Leaf as the guy with more "upside" because of his physical tools. My preference for Manning over Leaf was due to my closet racism, right?

 

You have obviously not even considered the possibility that I might be telling the truth about how I evaluate quarterbacks. You are also clearly determined to ignore the fact that first and second round QBs who meet the bill of what I'm looking for are much more likely to succeed than those who do not. For you, this discussion isn't about football at all. It's about my motives.

 

If you're ever in the mood to have a real conversation about football, let me know. But I don't have time to deal with the irrationality of your emotions. Consider this my last response to the category of post you've just written.

Edited November 18, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[JohnC]

 

 

> You have a specific qb profile that you adhere to when evaluating prospects. You would have passed

> on unconventional qbs such as Newton or Kaepernick and favored more cerebral qbs such as Schaub and

> Alex Smith.

 

There's some truth to the above. I believe the following:

 

1) There is wide variation in people's ability to quickly process large amounts of information

2) Most college QB prospects do not have the mental bandwidth necessary to become elite NFL QBs

3) If a college prospect does not demonstrate he's a polished pocket passer; it's extremely unlikely he has anything close to Aaron Rodgers-type bandwidth

4) Multiple attempts have been made to design offenses for quarterbacks with great physical gifts and limited mental bandwidth. These offenses can sometimes achieve limited successes: Losman's one good year for Buffalo, Kordell Stewart's one good year for Pittsburgh, etc. But when you think about QBs who sustained a high level of play for many years; you're almost invariably looking at accurate passers with high bandwidth.

 

There are times when I've messed up in evaluating QBs. Unlike other Ivy League schools, Stanford typically applies the same or very similar admissions standards to athletes on scholarship as it does to everyone else. Based on that, plus the Bill Walsh recommendation, I'd thought Trent Edwards had the kind of mental bandwidth necessary to be a very good NFL QB. I was wrong.

 

I've since come to realize that there is almost no substitute for a QB proving himself as a pocket passer in college. Edwards' Stanford degree was not a substitute for that; even though I'd thought it was at the time.

 

I've concluded that if I'm going to err, I'd rather err by taking a guy whose success as a college pocket passer demonstrated throwing accuracy and mental bandwidth. That's much better than taking a guy who wasn't a good pocket passer in college, and hoping either a) to turn him into a good pocket passer as a pro (very unlikely) or b) designing an offense to accommodate his limitations and maximize his strengths (very unlikely to be successful for more than 1 - 2 years).

 

One of my worst fears with Manuel is that he'll play well enough to string the Bills along for the next few years; but never well enough to achieve anything in the postseason. If he has 1 - years' worth of performances like he did against the Jets, the Bills might not take a first round QB until 2016. And might well pass up some very good QB prospects between now and then. Prospects who are a much better fit for the standard-issue NFL QB success story than Manuel.

 

I apologize if I am repeating myself but the problem I have with your qb intelligence paradigm is that it is too restrictive and exclusive. Different paradigms can also prove to be successful. Using your standards Cam Newton would not be a qb prospect you would consider having. I would! There were multiple reasons why he was the first player taken in the draft. He may not fit your mold but there were other molds that he certainly fit. While there were attributes you felt he was weak in, such as pocket awareness and ability to make quick reads, there were other different attributes that compensated for the other deficient categories.

 

I don't know if you are aware of it but Kaepernick was intensely recruited by Stanford, but declined the scholarship offer. He aced his SATs and could have gone to an Ivy league school. But from my standpoint those aren't qualifying or disqualifying attributes. The issue comes down to whether he can play or not. Bret Favre wasn't the most cerebral player on the field. From an academic standpoint he was a dullard. But the bottom line was that he could play at a very high level.

 

Trent Edwards snugly fit into your mold for an exemplary qb prospect. His struggles didn't relate to his level of intelligence or physical attributes. He had a psychological makeup that wouldn't allow him to pull the trigger unless he had a clear view and clean situation. He couldn't stop resorting to the checkdowns because he was simply too afraid to make a mistake when the situation wasn't perfect. Some players are impressive practice players who can't play when the real game begins. Some soldiers outperform their comrades when training but when the real bullets fly they can't be counted on.

 

As I stated in my prior post my criticism of your view is not that it is wrong but that it is too self-limiting. There are many different ways to succeed. If it works, then it works!

 

With respect to your assessing of Manuel I again suggest that you be more patient and see how he develops. It's a process. I'm aware that one game doesn't tell you too much about a player's prospects for success. But if you are as fair-minded as I think you are I'm confident that you saw something in his game today that made you more positive than your pre-game view of him.

 

As I have already recommended you need to ride this horse a little longer before you get off the saddle. You may be pleasantly surprised how things turn out.

Edited November 18, 2013 by JohnC

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

I apologize if I am repeating myself but the problem I have with your qb intelligence paradigm is that it is too restrictive and exclusive. Different paradigms can also prove to be successful. Using your standards Cam Newton would not be a qb prospect you would consider having. I would! There were multiple reasons why he was the first player taken in the draft. He may not fit your mold but there were other molds that he certainly fit. While there were attributes you felt he was weak in, such as pocket awareness and ability to make quick reads, there were other different attributes that compensated for the other deficient categories.

 

I don't know if you are aware of it but Kaepernick was intensely recruited by Stanford, but declined the scholarship offer. He aced his SATs and could have gone to an Ivy league school. But from my standpoint those aren't qualifying or disqualifying attributes. The issue comes down to whether he can play or not. Bret Favre waan't the most cerebral player on the field. From an academic standpoint he was a dullard. But the bottom line was that he could play at a very high level.

 

Trent Edwards snugly fit into your mold for an exemplary qb prospect. His struggles didn't relate to his level of intelligence or physical attributes. He had a psychological makeup that wouldn't allow him to pull the trigger unless he had a clear view and clean situation. He couldn't stop resorting to the checkdowns because he was simply too afraid to make a mistake when the situation wasn't perfect. Some players are impressive practice players who can't play when the real game begins. Some soldiers outperform their comrades when training but when the real bullets fly they can't be counted on.

 

As I stated in my prior post my criticism of your view is not that it is wrong but that it is too self-limiting. There are many different ways to succeed. If it works, then it works!

 

With respect to your assessing of Manuel I again suggest that you be more patient and see how he develops. It's a process. I'm aware that one game doesn't tell you too much about a player's prospects for success. But if you are as fair-minded as I think you are I'm confident that you saw something in his game today that made you more positive than your pre-game view of him.

 

As I have already recommended you need to ride this horse a little longer before you get off the saddle. You may be pleasantly surprised how things turn out.

 

Good post!

 

I agree with your meta-message: that some successful quarterbacks would not meet my definition of a good college prospect; and some unsuccessful QBs would. I also agree that Manuel played better today than I'd expected.

 

My memory isn't perfect, so I could be wrong about this. But I think that about 2/3 of first round QBs are either outright busts or mediocre starters. For a predictive model to be useful, it just has to provide a significantly better chance of being right than the average NFL team has.

 

Trent Edwards does not fit my current definition of what I'm looking for, because he was not a successful pocket passer in college. I realize it's very difficult to be a successful pocket passer when you don't have an offensive line. Edwards was considered a very difficult prospect to evaluate for that reason.

 

Edwards was reasonably accurate when throwing the football. We're not talking Montana-level accuracy here; but certainly he was more accurate than Fitz. He also had better physical tools. Maybe he failed due to lack of sufficient bandwidth. Maybe he failed because his risk-adverse personality prevented him from taking advantage of the mental bandwidth he had. A guy who's proved himself as a college pocket passer is less likely to fail for either of those reasons. But even with a proven college pocket passer, failure is not impossible; because the NFL is more complex than college. Also, the increased speed of the NFL game means QBs are given less time with which to process information.

[goldenboy81]

EJ DA GREAT

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I posted this elsewhere, but it got buried.

 

From ESPN.com recap:

 

EJ Manuel was 8-of-9 for 111 yards and two touchdowns when the Jets sent at least five pass rushers. Manuel's first attempt against the blitz was batted down by Muhammad Wilkerson, but he finished 8-for-8 with 34-yard and 43-yard touchdowns.

[ajzepp]

My preference for Manning over Leaf was due to my closet racism, right?

 

 

 

I must have missed something here.

[Orton's Arm]

 

 

I must have missed something here.

 

I would rather use a first round pick on a college QB who'd proven himself as a pocket passer; than use the pick on a "raw" prospect with great physical gifts. Another participant in this discussion strongly implied this preference is due to racism. What that discussion participant failed to mention was that even when that "raw" prospect was white--Ryan Leaf, Tim Tebow, etc.--I still rejected him.

 

If I were to make a list of the best QBs in NFL history, it would include the following players:

 

Johnny Unitas

Aaron Rodgers

Joe Montana

Steve Young

Peyton Manning

Tom Brady

Roger Staubach

Honorable mentions: Kurt Warner, Warren Moon, Drew Brees, Dan Marino

 

(I'm sure people will be able to think of a few extra names which should be on this list.)

 

A few of those guys--such as Steve Young--had very good physical tools. But for the most part, the above list represents guys heavily gifted with accuracy, reading defenses, etc. Not necessarily guys who were that much different than other NFL starters from a physical standpoint. If you want a top 10 QB of all time, it's much more important to get an elite pocket passer than a guy with good physical gifts.

 

I realize the Bills don't absolutely have to have a top 10 of all time QB. The Ravens just won a Super Bowl with Flacco; and he's not in that top 10 of all time category. But if being a good pocket passer is absolutely essential for being a top 10 of all time QB; then odds are it's also very important for being a top-50 or top-75 of all time QB. I at least want the Bills to have a top-75 of all time QB. That would give them a realistic chance of winning a Super Bowl; assuming they build a sufficiently good team around him. A Super Bowl victory is non-optional!

Edited November 18, 2013 by Edwards' Arm

[MDH]

At what point does this become a crusade? Unlike most crusades you're respectful and bring thought to the conversation (which I appreciate even if I disagree with much of what you're saying ) but it's beginning to look crusade-like at this point.

[GunnerBill]

Okay, first of all - Hi guys I'm new.... I'm from London in England and have been a Bills fan (we have family friends from Buffalo) and an NFL watcher since 2003 (probably say an avid watcher since about 2008).

 

I thought I'd start in this thread for one main reason - I really wanted EJ Manuel. I'd never watched college football until last year, but I started watching precisely because I wanted to see whether there was a guy there who could be the Quarterback this team has needed since before I started watching them. And I saw a lot from EJ Manuel at Florida State. The guy is a leader and the criticism he gets for showing no emotion is crazy. Leadership isn't about who shouts the loudest or who throws tantrums on the sideline, it's about being in control and EJ is in control of his emotions and consequently at Florida State he controlled his team. I hoped and believed he could bring that to Buffalo. I wanted him even when the draft experts were calling him the 5th / 6th / 7th best Quarterback available before his late rise up a lot of their draft boards. I felt he was a better option than Geno Smith right from the start and still do (not just based on yesterday)!

 

Before the injury I'd been comfortable with his development. I thought he played poorly at the Jets but other than that he'd shown some good things. After last week though, I have to say I was worried. The performance at Pittsburgh was as bad as anything Jeff Tuel or Thad Lewis had shown in his absence, so it was a relief to see him rebound well yesterday (despite no Stevie and no Robert Woods) and I thought it was his most mature and composed performance.

 

As for the issues in his game - I reject the lack of leadership accustations entirely which really leaves us with:

 

- Inaccuracy

- No deep ball

- Checkdowns

- Cumbersome footwork

 

I think the first two are linked - he has been inaccurate at times, especially when trying to throw down the field. The first Jets game was an example where he couldn't hit the boundary throws and wasn't giving his receivers a chance on the ball. That horrible overthrow to Stevie in the endzone early in the Steelers game last week was another example. I don't buy the defence that has been put up that he was accurate in college and therefore people can't question his accuracy... because whilst he did hit deep passes pretty regularly at Florida State he also had his fair share of checkdowns there. It's different being accurate in college and being accurate in the NFL because the windows you are fitting the ball into are much smaller once you are playing against elite NFL defences. Ultimately I think some of the accuracy issues could be resolved with sharper decision making. He hit a couple of nice deep balls yesterday, but equally as impressive were some of the intermediate throws one to Chris Hogan and one to Scott Chandler in the 4th quarter where he was fitting balls into very tight gaps. I think sometimes in the early games and a lot last week at Pittsburgh he was guilty of holding onto the ball waiting for a receiver to be totally open and then having to force throws as windows closed. This is the NFL - people don't get completely open very often, once you see a bit of separation you have to throw the ball and trust your guy to make the play. He did that yesterday and that for me looked like a big step forward.

 

The checkdowns thing I think is the most legitimate worry, because he did check the ball down a lot at Florida State too. I think this problem might have been exacerbated by the play calling at times. It's been predictable as has been mentioned extensively on this board, run on 1st down, run on 2nd down and leave yourselves in 3rd and 6 or worse and teams will play coverage and give you the checkdown and we all get frustrated when needing 6 yards it gets checked down to a back or the tight end and they get stuffed for 5. I think the play calling was better yesterday so hopefully that helps EJ out down the stretch this season.

 

The footwork is correctable. Most rookies I've seen in my time watching the NFL have come out with footwork issues to work on... whether they're Matt Stafford pocket passers or RGIII dual threats. I think that's an area where I'd expect to see some development if he can stay healthy the rest of this year and into next.

 

Which kind of leaves the question having been high on EJ before the draft where do I sit now and what do I think about drafting another QB high in the 2014 draft? I'm kind of split. Before the Pittsburgh game I would have said no. And whilst I'll forgive anyone a bad day at the office (I have enough bad days at my office after all) it was such a horrible performance that you could not come out of that game without question marks about EJ as our future starter. However, I think it comes down to how he plays down the stretch. If he has another Pittsburgh meltdown somewhere we have to draft a Quarterback if one of the top guys is there when we pick (not Manziel - he is Tebow Mark II all this "he has improved as a pocket passer" is exactly what people were saying about Tebow at this stage of his final year at Florida). If he plays at the level he did yesterday clearly we don't have a problem. If he has a mix of decent games and below average games but nothing as horrible as the Steelers game then I'd stick with him too. But then I've been a believer in him for over a year now... maybe that influences my view.

 

The one other comment I would make - and I don't mean it to sound like a criticism because ultimately most of you guys have probably been hurting through a lot more failure and have been a lot closer to it (I don't work with people or live with people who follow rival teams and take the ribbing on a Monday morning when we've lost) - but I find Bills fans quite quick to presume the worst. There was a lot of it last year in regards to Marcel Dareus and look at how well he is playing this year! It's a bit like "the Bills have got it wrong with EJ because they got it wrong with Losman and Edwards". I know this franchise has made some bad decisions over recent years but we have to judge each new one on its own merits.

 

Anyway I look forward to positng here. I've been a reader for a good while.

[Beerball]

Okay, first of all - Hi guys I'm new.... I'm from London in England and have been a Bills fan (we have family friends from Buffalo) and an NFL watcher since 2003 (probably say an avid watcher since about 2008).

Welcome aboard!

[JohnC]

I posted this elsewhere, but it got buried.

 

From ESPN.com recap:

 

EJ Manuel was 8-of-9 for 111 yards and two touchdowns when the Jets sent at least five pass rushers. Manuel's first attempt against the blitz was batted down by Muhammad Wilkerson, but he finished 8-for-8 with 34-yard and 43-yard touchdowns.

 

In this game EJ recognized what the defense was going to do and quickly went to the right option with an accurate pass. His ball placement was impeccable. A lot of credit for the efficiency of the passing game has to go to the receivers who made the catches with few drops, if any. Graham and Goodwin caught the long balls but the receiver who kept the chains moving and the offense on the field was Hogan. He plaayed well.

 

Edited November 18, 2013 by JohnC